




v.^n^O^A'^^l/r.A^C^y^ 



^^yt^^^^p^t^^K^^' 



'mm^. 



« A ./^' K/ 



:«», 






\<^i^C\'^"y/^^., 






m'A^Mm^j 



W:m,^' 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 

# 

[FORCE COLLECTION.] ^ 



^-f ;IV\16 



^UNITED STATED OF AMERICA. | 






0^^^^ftAfi^^A'5i 






'^tim^ 



"im^. 






):f^^^Kmmmm 



A A A . 'a O, .•* 



^^'.::"«««««eft ,'-■' 






fmf> 






WtrfG^wOJ 






A" "^ "> A /. ~ 






^^^-'■^mhr.r^ 



.^hm 






>^<C!?/^^^' 









ii^ 









i^^^mnj^i^' 



5.«??SSs>'«*SR^^^ 






rA^^^n*:^^/ 



slS^^SSSlii^il 



'"■''«^-aAa«. 



B;t^^^mm 



i/f^/ii^/^AA 



or 



\)(^-..Vif^ 



^mmm m^mAm%w^ 



12? THE 



House of Delegates of MaT^lai\A> 



ON THE 



Bill to coftfii-m An Aetf ^titl<^ an An Act to extenti to Sll 
t)ie cjfiz^ns ot" Maryland the same civil rights ami 

leljgious privileges that are enjoyed 
t under the constitution of 

I iheU.Stateso 






m 



HAGBRS-TOWI^: 
:?BINTBD BY ^V. ». BELl, 



Ov 



To tlve EaitoY oi Wat To\'e\\ liiglvt— 



SIR—- It lias become so fashionable in these days 
of wordy war for onr declaimers and orators, even 
those of the most distinguished order, to play repor- 
ters to themselves, to hand out their own productions 
to the world, sometimes to criticise them and some- 
times even to play the part of self-putfers in regard 
to them, that surely the smaller fry, the ignoble 
crowd of inferior speakers, who are born but for im- 
itation, and who, by long continued gazing upon the 
models set up before them for that purpose, have 
grown blind to their defects, wonld seem to need no 
other apology for acts which do, it must be confess- 
ed, wear on their very face a ridiculous, conceited 
air, than that which is to be fonnd in the influence of 
great examples, daily and hourly placed before their 
eyes in the political world. If but too frequently 
they are illy rewarded for their pains, if but too of- 
ten they fall flat in their attempts, if but too often 
they meet with contempt or ridicule where they had 
hoped for admiration, they can fold up their arms in 
perfect contentment and console themselves by the 
l^eflection, that at least they have manifested in their 
acts one of the characteristics of great minds, that 
they have fallen in great attempts, in doing that 
which the great daily practise. 

In truth, there seems to be no siifiicient reason 
why we should deny to declaimers the same dear 
privilege which men in every rank and in every con- 
dition in society frequently exercise ; the inestima- 
ble privilege of bestowing a little self-praise, and of 
occasionally thrusting their own works or their own 



( ^i ) 

productions upon the world, as having a right to 
challenge for themselves some degree of its admira- 
tion and applause. The Poet cries *^ Fresh fish 
from Helicon, whoHl luyT^ The Physician occa- 
sionally tells us that he has lounged away one or two 
winters within the walls of an university. The Mer- 
chant, even in country towns, as inconsiderable as 
our own, vapours away at an amusing rate about the 
price and quality of his goods ; and the Tradesman 
takes care to let us know that he executes his work 
in a neat and masterly manner. AVhy then may not 
the public speaker, without alarming the self-conceit 
of others, play his part also upon the stage of vani- 
ty ? It is true, that in general, men are somewhat 
better qualified for playing the part of self-critics, 
than that of self-reporters, if I may so speak. It 
has been very properly observed by a modern author, 
that literary men in criticising their own works, 
have in general an immense advantage over others, 
for it is quite certain, that they have read what they 
criticise -, and it might be supposed that the same ad- 
vantage would result from self-reporting, a terra 
which I must be permitted to use for the occasion, as 
the reporter must in general know what he himself 
has said. 

The complaint has, however, become very gener- 
al in these our days against such reporters-: That 
they so load the original with dress which did not 
primarily belong to it, so flounce it and furbelow it, 
that it is difficult, and in some instances almost im- 
possible to recognize it when buried in this adventi- 
tious apparel. In such cases the world should have 
some little regard for the feelings of a parent, and 
should pardon his delicate efforts to clothe the na- 
kedness of his offspring before he sends it into the 
world. Although this practice of self-reporting has 
grown to such a height, and although it carries with 
it such commanding examples and weighty names as 
"Would suffice to bear down any ordinary opposition. 



in 

aud would render any apology for conforming to i« 
unnecessary, let me in a few words assign the rea- 
sons for my determination to furnish yon, at your re- 
quest, Avith the substantial part of tlie Remarks 
made by myself during the late session of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of Maryland, upon the Bill for the 
removal of that clause of our Constitution prescrib- 
ing a Religious Test to be administered in order to 
the enjoyment of civil offices. If the occasion had 
wholly passed by — if the question had been finally 
settled which called them forth, then there wouM 
have been little to plead for the tender of them, save 
the gratification of an innocent vanity, or if we would 
use the modest phrases of modern times, of the ear- 
nest and irrepressible desires of a few friends. 

But the occasion is a present and abiding one 5 
they are now as applicable as they were when deli- 
vered. If they ever carried aught of conviction 
and power, in order to the removal of what cannot 
but be deemed a stain on our Constitution, they ought 
still to have the same efficacy until it be wiped away. 
This controversy has indeed grown grey-headed, but 
the friends of the Bill lately rejected, have no rea- 
son to despair of its ultimate success, so soon as the 
efforts of intelligent men throughout the state shall 
have unfolded the real tendency and design of that 
Bill. Like one of the fabled giants of antiquity, it 
has gathered new strength from each overthrow ; 
and the time is not far distant in the perspective, 
when it will, in its turn, prostrate its opponents. — 
The people of this state, in some sections of it, have 
been taught to believe, that this is a question of pre- 
dominance between Christianity and Judaism — that 
the Christian Religion itself is in danger — that all its 
legal props are about to betaken away ; every object 
of the highest sanctity in our land made liable to be 
ti'ampled under foot by the reviling infidel ; and they 
have sometimes even been menaced with an inunda- 
tion of infidels of every hue and of all casts, and 



( 6) 

with Synagogues, Mosques and Pagodas starting up 
around them on all sides on the ruins of Christian 
Temples. They are yet to be told in many sections 
of our state, that this Camel Bill which was to swal- 
low up all our christian institutions, is simply a bill 
proposing to give to the citizens of our state a right 
of electing whom they may please ; that it is a bill 
founded wholly upon the mild and benignant doctrines 
of their Gospel, which teach them to yield to every 
man his due, to give to every citizen having the ne- 
cessary civic qualifications, the civil and political 
rights which those qualifications entitle him to, with- 
out diving into his heart and setting up in bar to the 
enjoyment of those rights, religious opinions and 
practices which are matters wholly between himself 
and the God whose creature he is. They are yet to 
Jbe told, that this is a Bill which refers them to the 
operations of God in the natural world ,• and which 
calls upon them to contrast their Creator's actions 
and their Creator's doctrines with their own. He 
sends his rain upon the just & upon the unjust. He la- 
vishes the goods of this life even upon unnatural and 
disobedient subjects. We refuse civil and political 
rights even to good, faithful and obedient subjects. 

Had the question been proposed to the people o^ 
this state in its nakedness, such as it is, I should blush 
for my native state, but for the belief that this clause 
would have been long since expunged from our Con- 
stitution — If they had been asked, Are you afraid to 
trust yourselves ? Are you afraid to take into your 
own hands the right of electing whom you may 
please ? They would have regarded the bare doubt 
implied in the question, as a libel upon their under- 
standings. And yet it is undeniably true, that in re- 
gard to this question the people in some parts of our 
state have been self-fearers — They have been start- 
ing at bug-bears and shadows, which, when nearer 
approached and when released from the obscurity in 
which they were involved; they discover to be but 



(7) 

tlieir own sIiadoAvs. "Upon tliose vihom I have had 
the honor of representing, I cannot with propriety 
charge any such misapprehensions ; and there is rea- 
son to rejoice in the knowledge, that whilst our fel- 
low citizens in other sections of the state have discov- 
ered on this snhject an unusual and unaccountable 
degree of excitement and irritation, and start at the 
mention of a Test Bill as an hydrophobiast at the 
sight of Avater, the citizens of this county have al- 
ways regarded it with the mildness and temperance 
which becomes discreet and reflecting men. For 
their opinions I have already undertaken to give a 
pledge, and that pledge, 1 am assured, they will re- 
deem. To thcni however, I would wish to submit 
my views for their approbation, for which I would 
fain hope and with which I should not be* lightly 
pleased. The Delegate should never fear to render 
an account of his stewardship ; nay, he should rather 
render it unasked, and although he should not ruu 
the insect race after popularity, still should he not 
despise it when it may follow him in the discharge 
of duty. In submitting these remarks, I have found 
it impossible to recall the language of the moment. 
That energy of feeling which prompted it has pass- 
ed aAvay. The substantial part of them I am ena- 
bled to furnish from brief notes or memoranda, 
made both before and after their delivery, to w hicU 
I have confined myself, taking care not to advance 
any arguments which do not appear from these me- 
moranda to have been substantially made. In sketch- 
ing out and filling up these, I have experienced all 
tliose difficulties which speakers must ever feel when 
attempting to enclose the warm, energetic and con- 
cise language of the declaimer, in the strait jacket 
of cold and formal writing. Language is noAv the 
only vehicle of thoughts then much more forcibly 
expressed by a look or a gesture -, and hence the 
opening remarks have swelled to suoh a size as to 
CT)mpel the abandonment of my original intention^ to 



Incorporate a lew remarks elicited by tlie debate ia 
opposition ; these have been wholly omitted with 
the exception of the last observations herein contain- 
ed. In the public's hands they are left, to submit 
to the fate they merit, whether good or ill. 
Yours, Respectfully, 

JOHN V. L. M'MAHON. 
Cumberland, 1821-. 



mmmikm^i« 



Me. Speaker — 

If my esteemed friend, the gentle» 
man who last addressed you, has had cause to trem- 
ble for his temerity in approaching with youth and 
inexperience, a question at whose feet the stores of 
hoary-headed experience and the dictates of learn- 
ing and wisdom have so often been laid in this House 
and elsewhere, with how much fear and trembling, 
with how much humility should I, upon whom these 
incumbrances hang doubly heavy, approach and 
present my little but heart-bestowed offering. Still, 
although fearing that my views may be lost in the 
lustre of those heretofore presented, that I can add 
nothing to the mass of information relative to this 
subject at present before the public, that 1 cannot 
impart to others the convictions which have been 
forced upon my mind by these views, and although 
those are waiting near me who would bear away to 
public view and submit to the painful inspection of 
cold-hearted criticism, my necessarily imperfect re» 
marks, still will I oifer them, still will I urge them 
upon this House. On this occasion men may impute 
to me the hasty mind, the weak head or the falter- 
ing tongue, but never the faint heart. If, sir, my 
remarks could carry with them into the world, that 
zeal and energy which give rise to them and which 
alone give them aught of life and power that they 
may possess, it would be more gratifyijiig to him 
who off*ers them. 
In attempting to enter upon (he discussions whi<ih 



(10 ) 

grow out of this question, I find myself beset on all 
sides by objections >vhlch I cannot designate by arty 
more appropriate term than that of ** threshold ob- 
jections;" objections which lie at the door of this 
subject, and which would fain shUt it in from view 
and preclude us from entrance to it. 

Amongst these the most prominent, that whose in* 
flucBce I most fear, and that which in truth deserves 
the most consideration, is — "That in determining 
this question we are but blind agents ; that however 
extensive and uncontroled our powers as delegates 
may be on questions of a different cast, yet this is 
an occasion on which our law requires us blindly 
to obey the impulse given by the will of our con- 
stituents, without in any degree consulting our in- 
dividual opinions or wishes ; That this question has 
been submitted for decision to the proper tribunal, 
the citizens of your state, and has been determin- 
ed in the negative almost by acclamation." This 
objection says then to those who would combat an 
opinion deemed to have been so strongly and decid* 
edly expressed by the citizens of Maryland : In vain 
will you appeal to the reason — in vain will you en- 
deavor to enlist the feelings of those who represent 
the people thus decided in their opinions. On this 
subject their mouths are sealed — their hearts and 
minds padlocked — hearing they must not hear, see- 
ing they must not see. 

This is an objection which, in common with some 
others hereafter to be noticed, has been bandied out 
from mouth to mouth, and the use of which in the 
course of this debate we may reasonably anticipate. 
Itis well therefore, to meet it in a timely manner. If 
we are indeed, as it Would have us to believe,themere 
machines of the people ; if we dare not now exercise 
the faculties which alone have entitled us to a place 
in this ho\ise ; and if those behind the scenes and in 
whose hands we are as clay in the potter's hands, 
have given the direction to our motions, hopeless in- 



(11 ) 

ileed would be the attempt to give them a different 
direction. But, sir, let us examine this proposition 
in all its parts j let us enquire how far, on occasions 
such as the present, our constituents are authorized 
to give us imperative instructions ? and how far we 
ought to regard ourselves as hound to obey them ? 
and yet further, how has the public will been ex- 
pressed ? what evidences have we before us of tliat 
expression ? and on which side do they lie ? It is at 
present wholly unnecessary to travel into tlie gener- 
al question of the right of the constituent to instruct, 
and of the duty of the representative to obey the 
instruction given, inasmuch as we may safely con- 
cede the right of instruction,with certain limitations, 
on such occasions as the present. 

It may not, however, be amiss in passing it by to 
remark : that every member of the House is clothed 
with a two-fold representative character : that he 
represents two interests which, it is to be hoped, will 
always be found consistent and compatible with each 
other, but which have not equal claims upon his con- 
sideration, the one being an interest which must al- 
ways bow the head to the other. Although chosen 
as the representatives of several counties, in one re- 
spect we are all alike ; we are all the representatives 
of the state of Maryland. This is our highest and 
it should be our proudest title. Although in com- 
mon parlance the representatives of a siugle couuty, 
we are not therefore to promote the interests and 
gratify thfe feelings of those by whom we have been 
immediately deputed, to the utter disregard of those 
of the inhabitants of other sections of the state. On 
ordinary occasions we should hoJd the will of our 
constituents and their interests in subservience to the 
general interests, and thus bounded, if rational, they 
should in most cases be indulged. 

Sir, at (he present time, I am, as I think, willing 
to go as far for the sake of concession and for the 
purpose of strengthening what I may have to say, as 



(12) 

any, the most strenuous opponent of the bill before 
you. Let it be conceded that the people have, on 
this question, a right to require pledges of candidates 
for their favor, and to instruct those whom they have 
elected — Why have they this power ? It is, Mr. 
Speaker, because we are at this moment to he re- 
garded as in convention for the purpose of amende 
ing the constitution of our state. In providing a 
mode of amending or remodeling that constitution, 
the framers of it seem to have had in view a double 
object. It would not have deserved the name of a 
constitution, it could not have been more regarded as 
clothed with sanctity and entitled to reverence than 
laws of every-day enactment, had it not been placed 
beyond the reach of ordinary legislation. Framed, 
as it had been, with the utmost care and caution, it 
was proper that some mode of amendment should be 
adopted which would be likely to call forth the same 
care and caution in every act of modification or al- 
teration. The question then occurred, how is this 
object to be effected without incurring all the delays 
and difficulties incident to the call of a convention ? 
By our present constitution many institutions and 
doctrines were placed beyond the scope of the pow- 
ers of ordinary legislation, which had no intrinsic 
claim to such — many trivial and unimportant regu- 
lations had been classed with standard political prin- 
ciples. Its framers had reason to believe, what ex- 
perience has since taught us, that frequent amend- 
ments would become necessary, more especially in 
these unimportant, and therefore it behoved them to 
cast about them for some mode of amendment of it, 
referring the power to the same source, but less dil- 
atory and less costly than that by call of a conven- 
tion. By the adoption of the present mode they have 
contrived to blend the powers of ordinary with those 
of a special delegation in relation to acts alterative 
or amendatory of the constitution. 
TJiis mode; when analysed^ is separable ijito threo 



( 13 ) 

distinct operations. The passage of the first, or in- 
itiatory act, if I may so speak — the puhlication of 
that act — and the act of final passage or ratification. 
In what light are these several operations to be view- 
ed ? In relation to all matters coming ^\ithin the pale 
of the powers of ordinary legislation, every law 
which the General Assembly of Maryland may pass, 
is regarded as an absolute expression of the opinions 
and wishes of a majority of its citizens— It is theip 
wish and their will, expressed through the proper 
organs of communication* 

In the first passage, however, of an act amenda- 
tory of the constitution, of the mere initiatory act, 
which is merely designed to throw the question be- 
fore the people in order to decision by them, the 
Delegates are not permitted to express a positive 
and absolute opinion as to their constituents' desires 
or views. The. constitution tells them, "This is a 
matter too important to admit of surmises as to the 
people's will-You indeed come directly from auiongst 
them, filled with their opinions and glowiug Avith 
their feelings 5 and therefore Diuch respect is to he 
paid to your representations : but they can only be 
received as prima/acie evidence of the will of those 
whom you represent — To your constituents will we 
refer it to ascertain whether you have been mistaken 
or deceived 5 whether the opinion which you have 
expressed is the opinion which they entertain" — and 
by their succeeding Delegates they can specially de- 
clare if they have aught to say against the recep- 
tion of the first act as evidencing their opinions as 
to the propriety of the proposed alteration. Accus- 
tomed to technicalities, the Hoiise will pardon me 
when I would borrow one from a profession abound- 
ing in them ; and when I would liken the passage of 
the present act by the last House of Delegates to a 
rulenisi, laid upon, to a rule requiring them to come 
forward and express their opinions in a decided and 
unequivocal manner : or that otherwise that act wiU 



( 14 ) 

he received by the next General Assembly as an ab« 
solute expression of them : It calls upon thehi to 
come forward and shew cause against its passage 5 
and that they may know the provisions of the alter- 
ative or amendatory act, it is sent out to them by 
publication. 

This law, sir, has been thus submitted ; by that 
submission the people of this state have been called 
upon to say if their opinions and desires have been 
misrepresented, and if so, they have been and are 
now required to proclaim it in this House. We are 
now sitting in convention, that the people of Mary- 
land may shew cans©, if any they have, why this 
bill should not pass. 

This view renders the question at present before 
us, a very different one from tUat which presents it- 
self on the passage of an ordinary law. By the pas- 
sage of this act by the late House of Delegates, the 
burthen of proof has been thrown wholly on the one 
side. It4s not necessary or proper for the advo- 
cates of this bill to cast about them for some evi- 
dences of the people's will : it does not become them 
even to enquire. — They are seen glaring in the bill 
jtself. Sir, the people's will has already been stamp-» 
ed upon it ^ and we are bound to receive it as current 
unless they falsify it, unless they allege it to be a 
counterfeit stamp. 

Have they done so ? Do they so now ? Who are 
ihey who would shew cause for them against the 
passage of this bill ? Where are the credentials of 
their special delegation ? They are, as I think, to 
he found only in some distinct and unequivocal ex- 
pression of opinion by the people directly to the 
contrary. If they have deemed it proper in any 
section of this state to require pledges of candidates 
for their favor, that if elected they will use their 
endeavors to prevent the passage of this bill ; and if 
such pledges have been given when required, let 
those who have given Ihcn^ advance ^nd oifer their 



( 15) 

objections ; they have their credentials. If any 
members of this House, either for the purpose of 
furthering their interests, or through an honest con* 
viction of the impropriety of passing the present 
bill, did voluntarily and unasked, tender to those 
whose favor they were seeking a pledge of opposi- 
tion to this bill, before they were clothed with ihe 
representative character, and whilst they yet stood 
in the precarious condition of candidates ; such an 
expression of their opinions must be regarded as 
one of the inducements to their election ^ let them 
advance and offer their objections ; they have their 
credentials. Are there any present comipg as de- 
legates from counties in which, by public assembla- 
ges or in some other equally unequivocal manner, a 
majority of their constituents have manifested their 
decided opposition to the passage of this bill ; let 
such approach and offer their objections ^ they have 
their credentials. 

Are there any amongst us who, in imitation of the 
Priestess of Dodona, who was wont to go out and 
listen to the rustling of the wind amongst the kaves 
of the sacred tree, and thence to infer the will of 
deity ; are there any who have gone out and have 
listened to the rustling of noisy clamor amongst the 
people, who have thence inferred the will, and who 
now approach, bearing that clamor as an evidence 
of it ? Let none such approach to offer their objec- 
tions ; they have not their credentials. If such cla- 
mor were to be received as evidence of the people's 
will, then would it ever be in the power of a few 
noisy, interested or unthinking men, to drown the 
voices of prudence, reflection and wisdom. Sir, 
this is not that kind of expressioja of their wills 
which our constitution calls upon them to tender on 
the passage of such bills as the present. It must be 
an expression made understandingly — If i may so 
speak, it must be made soberly and temperately. — 
J^'^Kperience will justify me in the assertion. iM\ ihfi 



( 16 ) 

noisy and clamorous in every community are not 
those who give the tone to public opinion ; that they 
are ever ready to be the whippers-in of the more 
reflecting ; and, sir, had an expression of the pub- 
lic sentiment been called for and given in some un- 
equivocal manner, many of the loudest amongst the 
first confounded by the opposition and awed by the 
prudence of the latter, would probably have been 
found thereafter yelling as loudly in favor of this 
bill as tliey now are against it. 

Let it not be said, that as no such temperate and 
deliberate expression of their opinions has been 
made, we must receive those clamors as the best 
evidence of them which can now be had. Sir, there 
is better and higher evidence in the act before you. 
It has the people's stamp upon, and clamors will not 
falsify it. Are there any who would approach us 
with surmises and mere suppositions as to the vdW of 
their constituents ? For the same reasons would we 
say, Let none such approach ; they have not their 
credentials. 

But, sir, there are pledges on both sides of this 
question i if we have no such credentials as those 
above described, to authorise us to protest against 
the passage of this bill, we have no option ; we stand 
pledged to our constitution to ratify it. The peo- 
ple have been silent; their opposing voice is not dis- 
tinctly heard in this House ; and such silence we are 
bound to regard as an assent. Array then the for- 
ces — Let those thus authorised to oppose this bill 
secede from those not thus authorised, and it will 
be found that the opposition has dwindled to a speck. 
Yet the friends of this bill cannot wish or ask, that 
the mouth should be closed or the exercise of the 
judgment occluded as to its merits. This view has 
not been taken for that purpose. It has only been 
taken for the purpose of removing those vague no- 
tions as to pledges, which, if indulged, portend de- 
feat to this bill. It is that the members of this 



(IT ) 

House may not bow down to the Moloch of this day, 
that ephemeral, butterfly popularity, which is ever 
whispering in their ears, what will your constitu- 
entssay^ and which makes them start back even from 
the brink of a good action, as from the brink of a pre- 
cipice,- — It is that they may go out with the answer 
in their mouths to all ihe invectives of tliose consti- 
tuents, Your late Delegates had expressed your sen- 
timents upon this bill, and I am bound to receive it 
as evidence of them, until some deliberate opinion 
to the contrary had been expressed by you and com- 
municated to me. 

Our mouths then are not sealed upon this subject, 
and we may approach another of the objections 
which would shut us out from the consideration of 
the main question — It has been objected to the re- 
peal proposed by this act, in common with all other 
repealing acts of the same description, that alter- 
ations of our constitution have been too frequent in 
latter days — that this frequency and the facility of a- 
mendment of it have given rise to a spirit of innova- 
tion throughout the community which has too often 
caused our citizens to lose sight of the sanctity of 
constitutional provisions — that hence the latter have 
ceased to be regarded, as entitled to any higher 
respect than the most ordinary enactments, and that 
it is now proper to repress this innovating spirit, to 
stay in its progress, ere it tramples under foot our 
most precious political institutions and maxims. It 
is said that every such alteration, unless it be made 
for the removal of some gross and crying inconveni- 
ence or injustice, actual and practical injury, should 
be pertinaciously resisted ; and that they ought not to 
be listened to, who would have us to work such alte- 
ration merely for the purpose of giving imaginary 
beauty or theoretical consistence to our constitution. 
This objection, if applied to the bill before us, sup- 
poses two things — It regards the provisions of our 
constitution which this bill designs to take away, as 
C 



( 18 ) 

fiiniisliing conclusive evidence — '^That in the opii> 
ion of the franiers of that constitution. Religious 
Tests were proper, and ought to be adopted in order 
to admission to civil offices^ — that men ought to be ex- 
cluded from civil rights, because of their adherence 
to particular religious opinions — that the christian 
religion ought not only to be established, but that 
christians alone ought to be placed in the seats of ci- 
vil power — and that the present test is an effectual 
mode of ascertaining the existence of christian prin- 
ciples and characters." 

It supposes yet further, «*That although it may 
not altogether comport with those liberal and expan- 
ded political principles which regard religion as a 
matter between man and his God, as indeed better 
qualifying, yet in the present depraved state of hu- 
man nature, not to be regarded as absolutely neces- 
sary to the enjoyment of mere civil rights j still this 
provision of our constitution works no actual wrong 
orinjustice, and that therefore it ought not to be re- 
moved merely for the purpose of giving a greater 
degree of theoretical beauty to our constitution." 
These are all premises which, it is thought, no friend 
to this bill and no dispassionate man can admit. 

Sir, the friends of this bill approach with as much 
reverence the ark of the constitution as its enemies. 
Equally strong is their desire, that many of its pro- 
visions, as enbalming the most precious political doc- 
trines, adapted to all ages and to all climes, should 
always be regarded with the utmost reverence. But 
they cannot believe that their sanctity will be height- 
ened, or that they will be more effectually shielded 
from the attack of innovation, by tlirowing their 
mantle over our institutions and doctrines, less wor- 
thy of regard, and which of themselves furnish 
cause of exception. They would rather look upon 
such exceptionable doctrines and institutions as weeds 
which defile the fair garden of the constitution, and 
which do but cloud the beauty of the brightest How- 



( i^ ) 

ers it bears. The plucking up of the former they 
"would regard as having a tendency to enhance the 
beauty and brightness of the latter. They regard, 
sir, the present age as a proud age — as the age of 
constitutionsin which man, in imitation of the Author 
of his being, who is seen daily working around him 
according to rules prescribed to himself, is also seen 
laying down rules and maxims for his own govern- 
ment in the political world ; and as laying aside some 
of these as in a sanctuary into which the feet of or- 
dinary legislation never can intrude, and which none 
can approach but those specially delegated. They 
admit it to be right and proper, that there should be 
some parts of every system of human government, 
some rules of governing, which having been estab- 
lished by the people, after the maturest and most 
cautious deliberation, should not be liable to change, 
except after a call of like attention and reflection on 
their part on the change proposed ; otherwise they 
would be the sport and play thing of every succes- 
sion of delegates. 

Sir, if we look throughout our state and through 
this House, we will find that there have sprung up 
amongst us twe sects, holding directly opposite opin- 
ions in relation to the propriety of amending our 
constitution. In regarding it, one cannot but be re- 
minded of the controversies which have so often 
agitated the literary world in relation to the rela- 
tive merits of ancient and modern writers, in which 
the one party deemed every thing hallowed that 
came from the pen of antiquity, and all else unde- 
serving of applause ; whilst the other, running di- 
rectly to the other extreme, condemned indiscrimi- 
nately because of antiquity, and admired as indiscri- 
minately because of novelty. Such is the conduct of 
these sects in regard to our constitution. The one 
looks upon that constitution as a perfect grey beard, 
and its followers would treat it as the Thibetians arc 
said to act in relation to their Grand Lama j they 



(20 ) 

would take it, although a mere work of mortality, 
hang it up as an object of adoration, cast a veil over 
it to shut in all its imperfections from their view, 
pronounce it spotless, and fall down before it and 
worship it as faultless and perfect. The followers of 
the other maintain, that for ages past mankind has 
been continually on the advance in all respects ; and 
that the science of human government and the know- 
ledge of the principles of civil and political liberty, 
have been progressing in common with all things 
else 5 they contend that at the time of the formation 
of our present constitution, the world was yet,in some 
respects, a novice in relation to the proper construc- 
tion of republican- governments — that our ancestors 
had not the benefit of those lights of experience 
which we of this day enjoy, from having witnessed 
the operation of our government and the govern- 
ments of the sister states around us for nearly half 
a century past ; and that although this constitution, 
wliich they have framed, is the best which the wis- 
dom and experience of their days could furnish, it 
still lags far behind the more improved and more 
accurate notions of modern times. They allege that 
it was adapted to a state of things which no longer 
exists ; that the original equality or proportions of 
population in the several counties have not been pre- 
served — that population has changed its residence, 
and that it is now full time that we should tear this 
constitution to pieces, leave not one stone upon an- 
other, and build up a new one, upon more enlarged 
principles and adapted to the existing state of things. 
In relation to these adverse sects, the old maxim 
happily illustrated and enforced by the fables of an- 
tiquity, prescribes the course proper to be pursued— 
'' keep the middle waif^ — we should imitate in re- 
gard to them the conduct of a celebrated philosopher 
of antiquity, who, fmding many ethical sects around 
him maintaining doctrines directly opposed to each 
other in relation to morals, each holding much that 



( 21) 

was good, blended with much that was cxceptioiia- 
ble, undertook to select from each what he deemed 
worthy of approbation, classified them, and made 
them the doctrines of a sect at the head of which he 
placed himself as the founder, and which he styled 
<' the eclectic sect,^^ because its tenets were selected 
from those of all other sects. So, sir, would I num- 
ber myself amongst the followers of '' the eclectic 
constitutional sect ',^' and I must be indulged this 
day in promulging a few of the doctrines which 
might reasonably be ascribed to such a sect in regard 
to amendments of the constitution, that I may apply 
them to the bill before us. 

They teach us, that our constitution is not only 
entitled to a peculiar degree of regard as such, and 
because placed beyond the reach of ordinary legis- 
lation, but they also point us to the exigencies of the 
times in which, and the peculiar circumstances un- 
der which it was framed, as all tending to enhance 
that regard. They shew us that it was formed at a 
moment when all our citizens, who were not of too 
loyal a cast, had but one mind and one soul under a 
sense of the common danger which pressed upon 
them ', at a moment when all private and selfish con- 
siderations w^ere in a great degree swallowed up in 
zeal and energy in the public cause ; at a moment 
when by the collisions of the times, more \igor and 
activity of mind was called forth, and a higher de- 
gree of political wisdom evinced, than has since been 
displayed in our legislative halls or elsewhere in our 
state, in the long, and for the most part, the sleepy 
interval which has since elapsed. Tbey teach us 
that a constitution thus framed must be taken to be 
the result of more wisdom and of a higher regard 
for the public welfare, apart from sectional jealou- 
sies, than we could expect to call into exercise in 
these less trying, less dangerous days — these days of 
internal dissention and causeless local jealousies.—' 
They teach us yet further, that every year and every 



(22) 

day's siiccessfiil operation of this constitution, with- 
out working inconvenience or injustice, should but 
the more hallow it in our affections. 

On the other hand, they would teach us, that this 
constitution, although framed under all these advan- 
tageous circumstances, is yet the mere work of mor- 
tality; and that as all human productions, it must 
have as its inseparable incidents, imperfection and 
crroj'.— They would remind those who cry out a- 
gainst amendment of it, that they aim at being wi- 
ser than that instrument itself which pre-supposes 
error or imperfection as residing in it, and provides 
for its removal. They would deride those who ex- 
press a wish that we had an unchangeable constitu- 
tion, until they can point out some mode by which 
man, for whose government it is intended, can also 
be rendered an unchangeable being-— They would 
regard the antiquity of all provisions of an arbitra- 
ry or indifferent character, found in that instrument, 
and involving only questions of expediency and not 
of right or justice, as furnishing in most cases acon^ 
elusive reason for the continuance of them ; but they 
would remind us at the same time that antiquity ne- 
ver sanctifies error or throws the cloak of protec-< 
tion and immunity over wrong and injustice ; and that 
which was wrong & unjust in its inception will never 
become right and proper by lapse of time, although 
mortals had daily practised it and had interwoven it 
with their every institution. But the most impor- 
tant truth which they would inculcate is, that when 
it is objected to a proposed alteration of the consti- 
tution, that it is to be made in the face of calm and 
deliberate opinions to the contrary, expressed by its 
enlightened and revered framers, they should do 
something more than adduce the mere instrument 
itself 5 that instrument, to say the most of it, evi- 
dences nothing more than the existence of such au 
opinion under the then circumstances, and they must 
go yet further and show that no change of cir- 



, ( 23 ) 

ciimstances has occurred to justify a correspOndenil 
change of opinion : and that in fact at the Tery time 
of enactment of the clause in question they had ful- 
ly in view the incompatibility of it, with their de- 
clarations elsewhere contained in the same instru- 
ment, and with the enlightened principles which 
they themselves have promulged, and saw clearly all 
the individual inconveniences it would work, all the 
oppressive consequences which would flow from its 
operation, and that with all these things fully before 
their eyes, they yet deemed it proper to incorporate 
the provision in question with our constitution. 

These, sir, are all doctrines to which the mind of 
every man must yield assent. If we apply them to the 
case before us, what then becomes of the constitu- 
tional objection ? 

Let us for a moment admit that the opinion of the 
framers of that instrument does stand foot to foot 
and face to face, against the proposed repeal i still 
if gentlemen of this House will but listen, and caa 
but satisfy themselves — "That the exclusion of mea 
from civil offices because of the maintenance of par- 
ticular religious opinions having no immediate con- 
nection with human government, is an unnecessary 
restriction upon the right of election residing in the 
people, and an unjust denial of political rights." — 
They cannot, they must not, shelter themselves be- 
hind the musty opinions of antiquity. If they do, 
reason will pursue them and pluck them from their 
hiding-place. Hoary-headed wrong is, therefore, 
not the less wrong. This view will, I trust, serve 
to remove some unaccountable squeamishness which 
is evinced by some amongst us in regard to the re- 
moval of a provision of our constitution which they 
themselves deem and which they admit to be of op- 
pressive and iniquitous operation. There are in 
this House, sir, who in conversation with me, have 
frankly admitted, that were they now called upon to 
frame a new constitution for the state of Maryland/ 



( 24 ) 

they would most strenuously oppose every attempt 
to incorporate with it such a provision as this bill 
proposes to remove ; they would look upon it as un- 
suited to the age, and as unworthy of christians and 
freemen. But, say they, it is a part of a saered in- 
strument on which we dare not lay our hands.—* 
There are, it is true, many provisions in the present 
constitution which, were I called upon for a like 
purpose, I would unhesitatingly exclude from one 
now to be framed, and which yet I would desire to 
retain in that which we now have. But it is only in 
relation to provisions of an arbitrary and indifferent 
character, involving only questions of expediency, 
that I could thus act. Never could I attempt to 
plead prescription and antiquity for manifest injus- 
tice. If we would not now incorporate it with our 
constitution, we dare not now continue it without 
subjecting ourselves to the same imputation of work- 
ing wrong and oppression which could be made as to 
those who originally introduced it. Nay, sir, great- 
er is our criminality, as with them all the wrong 
which it might work lay hid in futurity, was of 
doubtful occurrence or at least but matter of antici- 
pation ; with us it is illustrated by all the past and 
by all that is passing. If ever there were a case in 
which the iniquities of the fathers rest and abide 
upon their children, this is that case. 

But the concession — ** That their opinions do 
inaintain the propriety of religious tests under ex- 
isting circumstances,^^ has been made only for con- 
cession's sake ; and I must now beg leave to retract 
it. From a careful view of the acts of those illus- 
trious men, of their feelings and principles, as shewn 
in their actings out and in their declarations, existing 
upon the face of this constitution and declaration of 
i'ights. From a survey of the state of religious tests 
during the proprietary government, and from a 
slight knowledge of the character of the times in 
which these instruments were framed, is the asser- 



(25 ) 

tion fearlessly hazarded — That "were they in our 
steads this day, could they rise from their graves 
and sit in judgment upon their own acts, another sun 
would not dawn upon this article of our constitution. 

Sir, when we look to the circumstances under which 
the country we now inhabit, was colonized, when we 
remember the causes which peopled this once howl- 
ing wilderness, are we not struck with the unexpect- 
ed contrast between the occurrences of that day, which 
gave a population to these shores, and the occurren- 
ces of the few last years ? Are we not ready to laugh 
or weep at inconsistent, dove-tailed human nature, 
when this contrast shews us the descendants of those 
very men who were driven from the abodes of civi- 
lization and all the smiling enjoyments of society, to 
tenant, with the less savage beasts of these shores, by 
ruthless persecution for religious opinions, in their 
turn commencing and most pertinaciousJy adhering 
to the same system of civil persecution which, altho' 
it at present only extends civil disabilities because of 
religious opinions, to the right of holding oilices, may 
yet Avith equal propriety be extended to the depriva- 
tion of every civil and political right. The children 
of the scourged are seen taking up the same whip 
with Avhich their ancestors were scourged, and in their 
turn becoming scourgers. 

At the time of the emigration of the iirst colonists 
of Maryland, England, the mother country, exhibit- 
ed tlie strange spectacle of two contending religious 
sects, perfect antipodes to each other in religious ce- 
remonies, and in many of tbeir most important doc- 
trines, nourishing the most deadly mutual hatred of 
the observances of ^ach other, and yet alike pros- 
trate before the arm of a hierarchy which maintain- 
ed the middle ground in point of ceremony and doe- 
trine between the prostrate sects- Scarcely resem- 
bling each other in any other particidar, save that of 
being alike the objects of an untiring persecution— 
the follower's of these sects were ?een living at the 
I) 



same inomcnt, early in the 17th century, from the 
arm of civil power. The Puritan was seen seeking 
the northern parts of these United States, whilst the 
Catholic found for himself a home in its southern 
parts, but more especially in the present territory of 
the State of Maryland. 

It is hut too natural and too usual for mankind, in- 
stead of learning humanity and moderation from hav- 
ing experienced, in their own persons, the ill effects of 
inhumanity and intolerance, to discover in their con- 
duct towards others, whilst they are yet smarting un- 
der the w rongs and injuries inflicted upon them, a 
spice of the same spirit which had caused the infliction 
of those injuries. Although such conduct might notin 
the abstract have been regarded as rational, we could 
not have been surprised or shocked to any great de- 
gree, had we discovered the Catholic of Maryland, 
when once securely sheltered in this province, level- 
ing at the heads of churchmen the same civil penalties 
which had been denounced against the profession of 
his religion in the mother country. Such conduct 
would have been much more excusable at that day 
than it is at this ; and it is highly probable that it 
would have been matter of history, had not the arm 
of the mother country extended itself even over this 
remote province. Be the cause what it may, in all 
the early legislative acts of the province, a spirit of 
religious toleration was evinced, such as was not to be 
expected from the temper and character of the age^ 
an age in which tolerance was just reviving, after a 
sleep of many centuries. In an act of the Provin- 
cial Legislature, passed during the year 1649, we find 
the colonists promulgating the wise and liberal doc- 
trine, '' That the enforcing of the conscience hath 
frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence 
in those commonwealths where it hath been practis- 
ed," and by the same act and other subsequent acts 
affirmatory of it, we find them extending equal civil 
rights to christians of aU denominations — ft very 



(27) 

great stretch of toleration for that day.— No exclu- 
sive support or estahlishment of any religious sect 
took place nutil the year 1692, when this state \vas 
iirst partitioned into parishes and a tax imposed on 
each taxable for the support of the Church of Eng- 
land. At this time the proprietary powers were in 
the hands of William and Mary, the Sovereigns of 
England, by whom they had been seized in 1688, on 
the downfall of the Catholic dynasty in the mother 
country — still it was conceived that enough was not 
done for the security of the Protestant succession to 
the English Throne, the plausible excuse in those 
days for religious intolerance. Several laws were 
subsequently passed prescribing religious tests in or- 
der to the exclusion of the Catholic, which were how- 
ever, all swallowed up in the Draconian law of 1716. 
By this law religious tests were prescribed, which 
continued to exi^t until the downfall of the Provin- 
cial Government. 

Permit me, sir, to call your attention and the at- 
tention of this House to the provisions of this act, as 
displaying the character and extent of religious tests 
in Maryland, before and at the time of adoption of 
her present constitution. Such a view seems to me 
to furnish some reasons why the present religious test 
has crept into our constitution, wholly distinct from 
a belief on the part of its framers that it was intrin- 
sically proper, and which will fully account for its 
insertion without requiring us to swallow the notion, 
*^that our ancestors did regard a connection of civil 
government with religion, by religious tests, as ab- 
stractly right and proper" — a notion which their acts 
and declarations elsewhere wholly discountenance. 

Before the passage of this act the lord proprietary, 
himself a Catholic, and a descendant of an ancient 
Catholic family, had been restored by the English 
King to his proprietary rights ; but the enjoyment 
of them was clogged by the provisions of the above 
cited act; passed during the year of his re^toratioa 



(38 ) 

to them and requiring the administration of the tests 
therein prescribed, in order to the security of the 
eminent dominion of the Protestant dynasty then on 
the English Throne. This law required, ''That in 
order to the enjoyment of any otfice or place of trust, 
the persons claiming the enjoyment of it should first 
take the oath of allegiance to the English King," 
should solemnly renounce the king-killing doctrine, 
as it was termed in those days, or the doctrine "That 
Princes excommunicated or deposed by the see of 
Home may be deposed or murdered by their subjects^" 
and also the doctrine, "That any foreign potentate 
or prelate hath any supremacy or even authority, 
spiritual or temporal, within the British Dominions?" 
that they should take the oath of abjuration of the 
pretender, and that they should make and subscribe 
a declaration of their disbelief of the doctrine of 
transubstantiation. Hence it is obvious that the sole 
intent of the act of 1716, and the acts passed previ- 
ously thereto, and prescribing religious tests, was to 
exclude from the civil olRces of the state the Catho- 
lics of Maryland, who constituted a large and highly 
respectable portion of the citizens of the province, 
and who, it was to be feared, might bring into office 
with them some predilections for the deposed King 
James and his children, the pretenders, which might 
lead them to forget the allegiance due to the Protes- 
tant family then on the English Throne : and might 
induce them to lend their official powers in regaining 
their lost dignities. From that family if restored, 
they had every reason to expect the re-establishment 
of the Catholic religion. 

Does not a knowledge of these facts seem to give 
a very different aspect to this clause of our constitu- 
tion ? Does not it seem a concession by a dominant 
to a prostrate religious sect, in making which, the 
interests or rights of others, were not had in view, 
rather than an enactment willingly made, and made 
under an earnest conviction that none but christians 



( -^9 ) 

ought to be placed, even by the people, in seats of 
power or trust ? At the moment of formatioii of our 
constitution, when a common sense of danger and a 
community of interests united all men who cherish- 
ed any degree of regard for the ultimate success of our 
revolutionary struggle, and when the inlabitants of 
the province of Maryland were about forever to take 
leave of the dynasty, for whose security the act of 
1716, and all previous laws of a like character, hud 
been passed, it might have been expected that reli- 
gious tests would have expired in this state with the 
political causes which gave rise to them — It w as not 
because our ancestors thought differently, that this 
clause found its way into our constitution. In all hu- 
man laws it is generally found that the remedies which 
they furnish, although required in many cases which 
are of possible or probable occurrence, are yet in 
terms and by express language extended only to those 
cases of inconvenience or injury, which are daily ex- 
perienced or are daily staring us in the face; whilst 
to those which may occur and which equally demand 
legislative interposition, they are not applied simply 
because they are not of daily oecarrence and because 
the necessity of legislative interposition is not equal- 
ly obvious or striking. How many are the instances 
in which it is necessary, by judicial construction, to 
extend the operation of an act beyond its express let- 
ter to cases not enumerated, but coming fully within 
the mischief designed to be remedied ? How many 
are the instances in which application is made to us 
and has been made to every preceding Legislature, 
to relieve against the consequences of a like over- 
sight? Men seldom act from possible or probable 
cases ; always on those of present existence — they see 
only the injury which is before them, and are blind 
to that which may arise. 

Hence the clause which this bill proposes to re- 
peal. When the framers of our coustitution looked 
around them, that they might see the extent of civil 



(30 ) 

i?3isquaIificatioiis flowing from the maintenance of tg- 
ligious opinions, they saw the whole force and ope- 
ration of the then existing act of 1716, exhausted on 
the Catholics of Maryland. Under that act, all per- 
sons who would take the required oaths, and who 
would make the required abjuration and declaration, 
were they christians or otherwise, were alike admis- 
sible to places of power or trust ; the only discrimi- 
nation which they perceived to be made by our laws 
was that between christian and christian , between 
Protestant and Catholic ^ and this they found flow- 
ing from political reasons which died in this state 
with the dominion of the British king. What then 
is the purport of the language of this clause ? The 
odious discriminations, says it in effect, which have 
heretofore existed between christians of different de- 
nominations for specious political reasons, shall now 
cease to exist ; we are brethren of the same christian 
family, and it is proper that the tomahawk of civil 
disqualiflcation which has heretofore been wielded 
against some of us, should now be forever buried. 
Therefore, all persons who will declare their belief 
in the christian religion, shall, by the will of the 
people, enjoy any of the offices of profit or trust in 
this state. By this extension of civil rights, they had 
tcompletely covered all the cases of political disqua- 
lification then before their eyes. At that time, the 
population of Maryland was almost exclusively, nay, 
I may say entirely christian, and none but christians 
seemed to languish under the operation of religious 
tests. 

Sir, this clause of our constitution was then re- 
garded but as a treaty of amity between contending 
christian sects ; and as well might you infer from a 
common treaty of amity between nations, a determi- 
nation not to admit at anytime afterwards, other na- 
tions not parties to that treaty, whether nations then 
in existence or afterwards to arise, to any friendly 
intercourse with themselves, as infer from this clause 



( 31) 

of our constitution a determination on the part of 
our ancestors to exclude all but christians from ci- 
vil communion with them. The case had not tliea 
occurred which now presents itself to us — At that 
moment the bright destinies of our country were all 
hidden in the womb of time — At that moment it 
could scarcely have entered into the mind of man to 
conceive, that the small seed which was then cast 
into the earth, should after the lapse of so short si 
time, have become a great tree, upon whose boughs 
the choicest civil and political blessings should be 
resting, and under whose shade men of all nations, 
of all tongues, and of all religions, should be seen 
taking refuge from the scorching rays of civil and 
religious oppression. Now, sir, the case is a chang- 
ed one ; a new evil has arisen. That which was 
originally but a friendly concession from christian to 
christian, a mere treaty of amity between them, has 
become, by change of circumstances, a treaty of of- 
fence as it regards other citizens, not christians, 
\vhich it was never designed to be. New parties 
have presented themselves in this state, who claim 
admission to the privileges secured by that treaty, 
and who present with that claim the same vouchers 
of its propriety which have entitled the christians 
of your state to the enjoyment of offices. 

It is then denied that tliis clause of our constltu-^ 
tion, although now operating to the exclusion of ci- 
tizens not christians, was ever designed to erect a 
permanent barrier between the latter and those not 
professing their belief in the christian religion, or 
that it was designed to have a permanent negative 
operation. It is contended that its affirmative ope- 
ration, its operation in throwing open the doors of 
office to all christians, w as the only operation of it 
which our ancestors had in view when they introdu- 
ced it 5 and that its negative operation in excluding 
others has resulted from the growing up in our state 
of a new class of ?iti.zen«j >yhosc existence w'as not 



( 32 ) 

then contemplated, or to say the least of it, was but 
the result of a compromise hi which their rights were 
for a moment disregarded ; and it is further con- 
tended (hat they themselves have furnished prhici- 
ple?; And doctrines which call for their admission to 
ejjUiil political rights when a proper occasion pre- 
sented itself for making that call. 

Sir, this view of the question is very much strength- 
ened by reference to other clauses of the constitu- 
tion and of the declaration of rights, in which, after 
the promulgation of general doctrines in relation to 
civil rights undeniably belonging to all men, be they 
Christians or Jews, Greeks or Turks, believers or 
unbelievers, and even to the worshippers of stocks 
and stones, we iind the framers of these instruments 
applying them in the same restricted manner — we 
find ihem^n these confining them in their operation 
to christians alone, whilst the Avorks of God and his 
Gospel, the undeviating practice of our government, 
and the very language of the framers themselves, 
do yet require us unhesitatingly to cede the enjoy- 
ment of those rights to all men. Let me instance 
one of those cases: In the 33d article of our decla- 
ration of rights is presented the broad and liberal 
doctrine, *'That it is the duty of every man to wor- 
ship God in such manner as he deems most accepta- 
ble to him." Now, sir, what is the proper, nay ne- 
cessary application of this doctrine ? It surely is not 
" that the christian alone may worship God in 
the manner he deems acceptable to him." Such an 
application would fly in the face of God's own doc- 
trines and commands ; in the face of the express 
language of the article itself, which says — '' that all 
men," not merely all christians, but *' all men may 
worship in the manner they deem most acceptable 
to God." It is, *' that the christian may repair to 
his temple, the Jew to his synagogue, the Moslem 
to his mosque, nay even the Idolater to his statues, and 
there worship according to their own lights, leaving 



( S3 ) 

the aeceptauce and degree of merit of their offering 
with their Creator, to whom it is tendered." Yet, 
sir, what is the application which is made of it in 
the conclusion of the same article ? It is the same 
absurd and unchristian application of which we have 
spoken, if we were to regard it as an exclusive ap- 
plication. Hear but its language — As such is their 
duty, says this article, therefore all persons profess- 
ing the christian religion are equally entitled to 
protection in their religious libertij. Is this indeed 
the doctrine of our government — That none but the 
christian is entitled to religious liberty ? that none 
but the christian dare lift up his voice to God in our 
land ? Yet further, can it for a moment be believ- 
ed, that the liberal and intelligent men to whom we 
owe this constitution and this declaration of rights, 
could ever have designed to give it that limited and 
exclusive application ? The answer is 'No' — and ev- 
ery man in this Hou^e and this State must echo it 
back. What ! that in this boasted land of civil and 
religious liberty, the christian alone dares worship 
God — the very supposition ought to call up a blush 
upon the face of every Marylander. 

How then are we to account for this language ? It 
is to be done in that obvious way in which I have al- 
ready endeavored to account for the existence of that 
provision of our constitution prescribing religious 
tests. After setting forth the general doctrine, they 
have contented themselves with applying that doe- 
trine to the case before them, leaving it to after a- 
ges to enlarge its application as circumstances miglit 
demand. Thus they tell us generally : That men 
may worship God in the manner most acceptable to 
him. When they came to appJy it, they looked a- 
round them & found the whole population composed 
of different christian sects — some of tliese they found 
exclusively entitled to the seats of powerv.and trust ; 
others bending under the load of penalties and civil 
disqualifications; because of the peculiar tenets of 



( s^ ) 

the sect to which they adhered. This shall not he, 
said they,— all christians of whatever denomination 
they may be, shall have the privilege of worshipping 
God according to the dictates of their own consci- 
ence, but they never intended thereby to declare 
that none but christians should enjoy this privilege. 
So also in the ease before us, with the same objects 
before their eyes — they have in some manner abol- 
ished all political distinctions between christians, at 
the same time not designing to deny, by barely af- 
firming that christians are entitled to certain politi- 
cal privileges, that others, not christians, arising 
^vitJiinthe state, may not also claim and enjoy them. 

These very ancestors have in fact driven in the 
entering wedge, which is forever to sever religious 
opinions from civil qualifications ; and they have 
placed the mallet in our hands, if I may use a vul- 
gar figure, with which, when occasion demands, we 
of after days can drive it in still further, even to com- 
plete severance. That mallet is to be found in the 
very doctrine above cited — that which teaches us, 
** that it is not only the right, but the duty of all men 
to worship God in the manner deemed most accepta- 
ble to him" — and which therefore, teaches most con- 
clusively that other civic qualifications existing, men 
are never to be excluded from the enjoyment of ci- 
vil or political rights, because of the performance of 
\vhat is by our constitution itself pronounced a duty. 
It tells us that it is not merely the right but the diitij 
of the Jew to worship God after the Mosaic law, if 
lie deem that mode of worship most pleasing to him : 
and that if even the poor, purblind idolater should 
conceive that God is present in the stocks and stones 
"which are the objects of his adoration, it is his duUj 
to fall down and worship them.— -Eiach worships ac- 
cording to his lights and convictions, and such wor- 
ship is accepted of God — Shall then frail man frown 
upon it ? 

Sir, has it ever occurred to the noisy and clamor- 



( 35) 

ous objectors against the bill before you, that it is 
but designed to remove disqualilications imposed by 
law upon many citizens of your state, forcing that 
which your constitution itself pronounced^ be their 
dut^-, and which it therefore^ requires them to do? 
That it is but to take away the charge which may 
at present, with great justice, be advanced against 
your constitution, that it blows liot and cold with 
one breath? That it points out duties to men, and 
then imposes penalties for performing those duties ? 
Thus do I sustain the declaration : that in making 
the change proposed by this bill, we are not disre- 
garding the respected opinions of the framers of our 
constitution. Thus do I prove that we are but call- 
ed this day to do that, which, could tlie graves yield 
their dead, they themselves would most strenuously 
urge upon us. 

But Sir, in order to render this constitutional ob- 
jection, as I have chosen to term it, an available one, 
there is another small supposition to be made, which 
however happens to be too gross to be swallowed.—. 
The most inveterate and unyielding adherents of that 
constitution dare not pretend to claim for it, that which 
some Englishmen who seem to have been disposed to 
hug their chains, at the termination of the 17th cen- 
tury claimed for their King,a divine right, not in any 
degree to be impaired or restricted. None, 1 think 
will be more disposed to vindicate the tyranny of the 
constitution than regal tyranny. It is necessary 
therefore to get rid of this proposition for amend- 
ment, by denying that this test, although admitted in 
the abstract to be unjust and improper, does yet in 
fact, work any wrong or inconvenience, or at least 
any so considerable as to justify the proposed repeal. 
Now if this test does not in fact, produce any indivi- 
dual injury or oppression deserving of consideration, 
the lenity of its operation must be owing to one of 
two supposable causes. Either the disqualification 
wi'ouglit by this test must be inconsiderable and unim- 



(36 ) 

portant in its nature and effects, or it must be so be- 
cause of the small number of citizens upon whom it 
actually ^erates. 

It has iTOeed been sometimes said: Why! these ci- 
tizens have every thing which can render life esti- 
mable— -they are permitted to live, to worship God 
after their own manner — they may pursue at their 
pleasure any of the various avocations in life — they 
may sit under their own fig tree and eat of their own 
vine and none to make them afraid — what more do 
they desire? Why, merely that they may not be your 
mere tenants at will in the enjoyment of these bles- 
sings, that their voice may at least be heard in com- 
mon with that of their fellow-citizens in that gov- 
ernment which gives and takes them away. Admit 
that they enjoy all these, what have they more than 
many subjec(s of the most despotic monarch on earth. 
In all countries there are some few green spots upon 
which the withering eye of the despot has never rest- 
ed, and where all those blessings might be enjoyed, 
which fall to the lot of unbelievers amongst us. But 
both here and there and wherever they have no ac- 
tive participation in the government,their privileges 
are rather regarded as permissions than rights ; but 
do gentlemen who talk thus, reflect upon the nature 
and extent of the disqualification? Is it inconsidera- 
ble to a man of feeling to have the mark of Cain set 
upon him ? Is it inconsiderable to such man of like 
fashion with ourselves, glowing with the conscious- 
ness that he possesses every mental and moral quali- 
fication to entitle him to the esteem and confidence 
of his fellow-citizens, to be told that all these to the 
contrary ; so unworthy is he of them, that his fellow- 
citizens shall not even be permitted to bestow them, 
upon them ? Is it nothing to such man to be told, 
*'You may indeed enjoy civil liberty — you may exist 
here — you may play the brute here — you may cat, 
drink and sleep here ; these are aH passive rights 
which we will permit you to enjoy for the same rea- 



( -37 ) 

son that Uncle Toby restored liberty to the jRy, be- 
cause there is room enough for you without incom- 
moding us. But we wish you distinctly to understand 
you are the creatures of our will: you exist here 
hy our permission ; if you find aught cheering and 
inspiriting in the influence and operation of our gov- 
ernment, you owe it all to our mere good will and 
pleasure ; and we who give, can at any time take a- 
w^ay. As for you, you are politically dead ; we knoVv 
you but as one of the passive and unresisting, be- 
cause impotent governed." Is it nothing to such 
man to know that the same ignominious mark which 
he himself bears, he must impart to his innocent, un- 
offending offspring — to know, when he sees them 
springing up around him with every power to in- 
struct, and with every quality to adorn, glowing with 
that honorable and laudable ambition by which all 
men are or ought to be actuated, and which would 
impel them to climb the steep of virtuous fame, that 
notwithstanding all this they will be checked at its 
very base by the rude arm of our constitution, which 
tells them that they must not even strive io ascend ? 
It has been said that 'tis hard to climb ambii^'on's 
steep, but harder yet the late of him who is toh- he 
must not dare to climb it ; this part of its operation 
is the unkindest cut of all. 

Sir, when men talk about the inconsiderable na- 
ture of the privileges denied by this test, they forget 
the obvious distinction between the actual exercise of 
a right and the power of exercising it at pleasure. — • 
The condition of the freeman and the slave is in ma- 
ny respects alike — many of the former earn their 
daily subsistence by the same unsparing toil wliicli is 
allotted to the latter ; yet the one v?^ould rejoice o^ er 
his brown bread, whilst the otlier would sigh even o- 
ver dainties. It is opinion, mere opinion which alone 
gives enjoyment to and takes away contentment fioni 
every situation in life ; those are happy avI>o believe 
themselves to be so ; those arc free who believe them- 



(S8 ) 

selves to be so. In the actual enjoyment of offices 
there is to many men not much to allure or to grati- 
fy ; the trust is so often betrayed and, the honor so 
often tarnished that in these days there are found 
some who v/illingly exclude themselves from the en- 
joyment of them. Yet how vast the difference be- 
tween a voluntary and an involuntary exclusion ? — 
The denial of every enjoyment does but enhance it 
in the estimation of those denied. It is of this that 
those excluded by your constitution have reason to 
complain: — not that they do not enjoy offices of pro- 
fit or trust, but that they are deemed wholly unwor- 
thy of enjoying them. If the disqualification be not 
inconsiderable in its nature, neither is it so because of 
the small number of those upon whom it is to ope- 
rate. It is a new doctrine in political or individual 
morality which it was reserved to this age to bring 
forth — that an injury is not to be redressed until it 
swells to a certain size — that the groans of those who 
are affected by it are to be disregarded until they 
come in deafening clamor upon the ear. Sir, if this 
be indeed a doctrine of modern times, it would put 
us upon the same kind of inquiry to which one of an- 
tiquity was driven, when told that age gave excel- 
lence to writings as to wine. We would have to in- 
quire, How widely diffused must the .injury be?— » 
How many the persons upon whom it operates ? How 
Kiany sighs, and tears, and groans, are necessary to 
give weight to the complaint, and to entitle it to the 
consideration of the injuring individual or govern- 
ment? Where are the scales in which we are to 
weigh it? There is but one case in which an objec- 
tion of this kind is of any avail, and that case bears 
no resemblance to this. It is often said, and proper- 
ly said too, in reply to objections urged against gen- 
eral laws in their operation, jiroductive of particu- 
lar inconveniences, *' that such objections furnish no 
sufficient reason for their repeal, inasmuch as it is 
wholly impossible for human ingenuity to devise any 



( 39) 

general rules adapted to all cases, which ^vill not be 
found to result in injury in some of them, and as this 
is an imperfection necessarily incident to the gener- 
ality of every rule, until the particular inconvenien- 
ces become so weighty as wholly to bear down the 
general resulting advantages." The case betbre us 
however is not a case in which such reply can be 
made. — If this objection is to operate as a prelimi- 
nary objection, then it must admit everything which, 
we allege, will be rendered manifest by entering in- 
to an examination of the merits of the main ques- 
tion ; it must admit that this test, when regarded in 
the abstract, is unjust and oppressive. What then is 
the general good which is to result from tlie conti- 
nuance of it and which is to counterbalance the par- 
ticular injuries which it produces ? We are answ er- 
ed *'it consists in checking that spirit of innovatioii 
upon the constitution which is too prevalent at this 
day, by preserving it inviolate in all its parts." The 
folly of the notion, that its sanctity is increased by 
the preservation of exceptionable parts, has already 
been commented on and seems to be too manifest to 
require further exposition ; is the good and pure ren- 
dered more so by mingling with the corrupt and im= 
pure? Will the foot of profanity approach with 
more awe and reverence this holy of holies, if it be 
defiled by things unholy? 

Sir, it is the very continuance of these exception- 
able parts which renders the people of your state in 
many sections of it so clamorous against your pre- 
sent constitution. They judge, as mankind in gen- 
eral judge, of the whole instrument from some of 
these its prominent parts. The good is passed by 
unnoticed and the evil is held up to public view as a 
fair specimen of the whole. If ye would check the 
spirit of innovation ye must do it by taking away 
such clauses as the present which do but whet its ap- 
petite and invite its attack ; — And those who would 
tell that it is proper to disregard particular injuries 



(40 ) 

because tlic complaint of them comes from persons 
too inconsiderable or too few in numbers to surmount 
the general clamor, would do well to remember that 
the very Lord of the universe sees not a sparrow fall 
to the ground without noting it. Such is the exam- 
ple which human governments should set before 
their eyes. They should not see the sparrow, the 
initst inconsiderable object in the community, suppli- 
catirig their assistance and relief without turning the 
ear to hear and stretching forth the hand to redress. 

There is yet another point of view in which this 
objection ought to be placed, and which gives yet 
greater magnitude to the injurious operation of this 
test. It is perhaps less to be reprobated because of 
its present action than for its repelling and forbid- 
ding aspect. It may indeed be properly regarded as 
a flaming sword, placed at the end of our constitu- 
tion, turning on all sides, w hich forbids the approach 
to our shores of many enterprising, useful and weal- 
thy men. Bigotry itself will not deny that there are 
many such to be found even amongst those who would 
not subscribe a declaration of belief in the christian 
religion. Many such have been found, many such 
are known even at this day amongst that despised 
and persecuted people, the children of Abraham. — > 
To all such this test says ''Approach not this people 5 
dwell not amongst them — they draw near unto poli- 
tical liberty with their mouths, but their hearts are 
far from it — to their laws ye will be unknown except 
as the mere creatures of obedience." 

To me, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be nothing in 
these preliminary objections which ought to shut us 
out from a decision of the merits of this bill. Yet 
in truth they are the most forcible which can be 
urged against the proposed repeal, and they caused 
us to lurry longer in the threshold than we shall per- 
haps in the main edifice. This subject is one which 
has but lately engaged my attention ; yet that brief 
atteation has sufficed to conviace me so f^v as my 



(41 ) 

knowledge of the long continued controversy grow- 
ing out of it extends, that the merits of this or of 
any preceding bill designed to be more particular in 
its operation, have not as yet been fully disclosed » 
I would not arrogate to myself the power of discov- 
ering arguments and persuasions hid from the ken 
of other men ; but the views which I would present, 
are offered as the fruits of an unwearied industry, 
which has stooped to gather what the hasty tread of 
other men has passed by. 

It is well known to this House, that this subject 
has been agitated here and in the state for some 
years past; that in some instances the assent of the 
delegates of Maryland has been asked to what were 
properly termed "Jew Bills," in others to bills of a 
general nature, proposing the entire taking away of 
the test. To me it does seem that there are no ar- 
guments justifying a partial, which do not also de- 
mand a total repeal of it ; yet both upon those bills 
which were properly termed " Jew Bills,^^ and up- 
on such as the present j which we may term '• Test 
Bills," the attention of the public has been wholly 
turned away from the general propriety of religi- 
ous tests, to the particular operation of the one now 
under our consideration, upon certain of our citi- 
zens. — Our attention has been primarily directed to 
the history and character of the Jews as a people, 
by the partisans of both sides, for the purpose of 
evincing the propriety or impropriety of the propos- 
ed repeal. 

On the one hand the origin of the Jewish nation 
has been pointed out io us — we are told, ** that they 
were originally the peculiar objects of God's care 
and kindness ; that they were preserved by him as 
a burning light amongst the nations ; that whilst all 
other people lay buried in the grossest spiritual ig- 
norance and superstition, they were the depositaries 
of his gospel until he should come, who would res- 
tore all thing.?.'' True it is, sav such observer?, 
F 



ihat tlicy iiave been abandoned for a season ; that the 
brightness of their temporal and spiritual glory has 
long been abandoned ^ that their temple has indeed 
h^en prostrated ; that their holy city has indeed be- 
come the abode of the howling beast of the desert. 
Yet their glory is but clouded, and the cloud will 
soon pass away 5 the face that is now averted will 
soon be turned upon them clothed with all its accus- 
tomed kindness, and we who are now witnessing the 
daily developments of returning mercy towards this 
long lost people should minister unto the designs of 
Providence, by taking them by the hand as political 
brethren and clothing them with the same civil rights 
which we ourselves enjoy. 

On the other hand, from a like mistaken notion, 
^' that human governments administered by frail and 
short sighted mortals should conform in their opera- 
dons to the judgments of an all-seeing God," whose 
aim and design in inflicting them, we ourselves can- 
not comprehend, but can only reverence. The his- 
tory of the same people has been referred to by the 
opponents of this and of all preceding bills of an an- 
alogous character, to justify their exclusion from 
political power. Our attention has sometimes been 
directed to their conduct as a nation and as individu- 
als, even whilst they dwelt under the shadow of di- 
vine mercy. All their murmurings, their rebellions, 
their long-continued and often repeated acts of dis- 
obedience, whilst they were yet the indulged chil- 
dren of his care, have all been conjured up in judg- 
ment against their claim of political privileges by 
many who are every day guilty of like disobedience 
and like rebellion against the Author of their being. 
We are pointed to their present nationless situation, 
if I may so speak — we are shewn them a by-word 
amongst all nations; and, sir, there are some a- 
mongst us of rather the weaker vessels of the chris- 
tian church, it must be confessed, who, unable to 
'Hvince any of that mild and forgiving spirit which 



( *^ ) 

would induce ihem to ask blessiuj^s even upon the 
head of an enemy, or to illustrate their adherence 
to the christian doctrines in any other way ; there 
are some such who would fain have us to visit upon 
the heads of the Jews of this day, after a lapse of 
eighteen centuries, the acts of their progenitors, 
whom the Saviour forgave, although the a ery ac- 
tors. Yes, sir, we who are every day crucifying 
him anew by our acts, as much as though we had 
been at the foot of the cross, we charge them with 
being the descendants of his crucifiers. 

Sir, discussions of this kind have no connexion 
with this question. — When we can attain to the at- 
tributes of Deity, fathom all his purposes, and in- 
terpret all his acts, then perhaps we may set up his 
decrees as patterns for our imitation. But as well 
might we, because by those decrees whole countries 
have been devastated, whole nations slaughtered and 
the very infant slain at the breast ; as well might we, 
fancying ourselves clothed with the power, mount 
the white horse of destruction, and go forth alike 
indiscriminately to slay and to devastate, as plead 
his unsearchable decrees in relation to this people as 
a reason why we also should deal hardly with them. 
The course which the arguments on this bill have 
taken forcibly illustrates the truth of the observa- 
tion which I have already made: that mankind with 
general principles before their eyes to direct them, 
do but too often reason and act from particular ca- 
ses. Such reasoning is often proper and conclusivcy 
but it does not cover the whole question. In this in- 
stance, however, the attention of the public has been 
directed to the Jews as constituting a numerous and 
respectable people, excluded by the operation of this 
test 5 yet it has been directed in an improper man- 
ner. Their history has been referred to — but for 
what ? Sir, if this were a question of sympathy, 
there is, I should suppose, enough in their history to 
elicit it fyom all presents They could be pointed 



(4'i ) 

out to you as scouted from land to land, as driven 
from home to home, by a relentless spirit of perse- 
cution which seemed but to whet its appetite by the 
gratification of it. In my native wilds, the hunter 
who is accustomed to look upon the objects of his 
pursuit as his fair and legitimate prey, will some- 
times pause and gaze with compassion upon the ago- 
nies of the stricken deer, and will sometimes drop 
the murderous weapon. But, sir, Israel has been 
the stricken deer, upon whom her hunters have ne- 
ver had compassion. Still this is ground into which, 
however willing, I must not enter. If we do tra- 
vel from the general principle into particular cases 
coming within its operation, all that we can enquire 
is, whether the particular cases are such as ought to 
come within its operation, and such as call for it. — > 
To illustrate the general principle upon which this 
and other bills more special in their provisions have 
rested, is, that civil governments have no immediate 
connection with any particular religious opinions ; 
and that all religious tests bringing about such a con- 
nection, ought to be repealed. For the purpose of 
shewing how wholly improper it is to make civil 
governments the mere governments of a particular 
religious sect, it may be proper to refer to its parti- 
cular operations — it may be proper to point our at- 
tention to the Jews, as to a highly respectable class 
of citizens, with every thing that could qualify them 
for the administration of human government, ex- 
cluded because of opinions which do not in the least 
derogate from those qualifications ; but not in the 
manner in which it has been done — what their an- 
cestors were, is to us a matter utterly unimportant 5 
what the Jews of this day are, it is alone important 
for us to know. 

The operation of the act before us, if passed, will 
be to throw open the doors of ofilce to Jews amongst 
others. Therefore, the question may be asked. Are 
they unworthy of this high political right ? Arc they 



( ^5) 

destitute of those qualifications which would enable 
them to discharge the duties incident to the offices of 
this state ? Or admitting these questions to be decid- 
ed in the negative, is there any danger to be appre- 
hended from referring these questions to the people 
or their officers for their determination ? It has 
sometimes been said, that there is that in the char- 
acter, the customs, the religious ceremonies, the re- 
collections and the anticipations of the Jcavs, Avhicli 
ought to disqualify them for the enjoyment of poli- 
tical rights in any country. These, we are told, con- 
stitute a barrier of separation which has severed 
from their origin as a nation, and which will during 
their continuance as such, forever sever them from 
those amongst whom they dwell. Since the mo- 
ment of their dispersion by the hand of Providence, 
where'er they roam, where'er they be, they drag at 
each remove a lengthening chain which binds them 
to the home whence they have been driven. They 
cherish, say such objectors, the delightful recollec- 
tion that they were once God's chosen people, seated 
above all nations in point of power and privilege ; 
and they dwell with extacy upon the hope of an ap- 
proaching day when they will resume ihe same proud 
seat. These reflections and imaginations, it is al- 
leged, are constantly indulged ; and they beget and 
nourish in them throughout the whole earth a degree 
of disregard and contempt for the laws, institutions, 
customs & welfare of every other people. "Hence," 
some have unkindly said, '* they have been found in 
all ages since their dispersion, to be the leaches of 
the world, draining its blood at every pore, preying 
upon its necessities and acting as the pandars to its 
vices." 

Sir, what does the history of this day tell you in 
relation to this people? Does it confirm this state- 
ment? Does it shew them to you all relfish, all in- 
terested, all regardless of the public welfare, all 
dead to the throb of patriotism, all avaricious, all 



(46 ) 

usurers and money changers ? Does it not rathei 
show you many amongst them, in those nations of 
Europe, and in those states of the union, where they 
are admitted to an equal participation in civil and 
political rights, numbered amongst the useful, intel- 
ligent, enterprising and patriotic citizens of the com- 
munity to which they belong ? There are even in this 
house, in the hands of an honorable member present; 
abundant evidences of the truth of this assertion, 
without travelling beyond it or beyond the instances 
furnished us in our own country. These shew you 
the highest marks of regard and esteem lavished up- 
on them even by the hands of christians — these shew 
you several striking manifestations of public respect, 
tendered by the hands of your own citizens, to those 
very men who are this day by your constitution pro- 
nounced unworthy of holding the meanest office in 
your state. They bid proud defiance to its declara- 
tions, and throw the lie direct in its teeth. 

Were there no other act of the sons of Abraham 
on record, than that which the clamor of applause 
has just borne to our ears, it were enough to redeem 
from the stigmas of our constitution and to cast the 
mantle of political privilege over a whole people.— 
Is it not yet ringing in our ears that one of these al- 
leged selfish, interested, usurious men, has just ex- 
pended a moderate fortune in redeeming from the 
process of christian laws, and from the hands of 
christian officers, a christian temple, not that he 
mighl make it the receipt of custom, the seat of mo- 
ney changers, or a?i edifice of commerce, but that 
he, the Jew, whom some christians would term **the 
infidel dog," and whom such laws as ours would op- 
press, might enjoy the unspeakable pleasure of res- 
toring it to the christian sect, from whose hands it 
had been torn ? And yet this man, in the estimation 
of this constitution, would be so debased and grovel- 
ing that he dare not lift up his eyes even to the office 
of a constable of a hundred. If ten menj righteous 



(47) 

men, would have redeemed Sodom and Gomorraili, 
I repeat it, that one such act should work political 
redemption for a whole people. 

Let us, however, for a moment go hand in hand 
with this objection to its utmost limit ; let us con- 
cede all that it demands, and we find upon closer en- 
quiry, that instead of operating as an objection, it 
furnishes the strongest possible reason for breaking 
down the barriers which our own laws have erected 
to separate us from this people. It is this wall of 
separation which we ourselves have built up, which 
more than aught else continues to sever us, although 
citizens of one commonwealth. Those who urge 
this objection, if they look more closely into their 
conduct, will find that they are imitating the great 
father of evil, who first tempts to sin, then damns for 
sinning. They will find that they are setting up as 
an excuse for the denial of rights due to every or- 
derly citizen, feelings and principles which, even if 
their existence were admitted, must be acknowledg- 
ed to be in a great degree superinduced by that very 
denial. Sir, it is as though your laws had ordered 
an individual to be excluded from society, and to be 
cast into the company of lepers; and then, when by 
your act he had taken the infection and had become 
leprous, you would plead his disease brought about by 
your acts in justification of your continued determi- 
nation to exclude him. If these people are indeed 
infected with a political leprosy, which ought to shut 
them out from political communication with you, to 
you and to your laws do they owe it. Take away 
but the infection, remove the barriers which have 
heretofore shut them out from a pure air and a free 
walk, and ye will restore them to a state of healthy 
contentment and respectability. 

Look back to the transactions of the last fourteen 
or fifteen centuries ,• nay do but direct your attention 
to the events of this century, refined and purified, as 
it is said to be, by ^Hhe mild lights of philosophy and 



( 48 ) 

religion,'^ and do they not show you some other 
causes for that repelling spirit, that shrinking into 
self, tliat cold abstraction from other men which is 
pleaded as manifesting an utter indifference as it re- 
gards the prosperity of other men or other nations, 
and that they ever regard themselves as homeless 
and will never amalgamate with the people amongst 
whom they dwell ? Do we forget the events of the 
crusading aera, in which the Turk and the JeAV were 
alike hunted down by the fury of a christian popu- 
lace ? Do we not remember that there is scarcely a 
country in Europe whence they have not been re- 
peatedly banished ? Without travelling into the 
events furnished by the histories of other nations, 
have we forgotten those glaring in the chronicles of 
England, our mother country? Has that intolerant 
age been forgotten, when in intendment of the Eng- 
lish law the goods and the very life of a Jew were 
at the free disposal of the lord in whose manor he 
was found ? when English kings amused themselves 
with the infliction of novel penalties and tortures, 
such as that of drawing their teeth in order to the 
acquisition of their wealth ? when to them every dis- 
pensation of Providence, in the form of disease or 
plague, was imputed and secret, unwitnessed mock- 
eries of, and blasphemies against the christian reli- 
gion and its author ? Nor are such acts mere mat- 
ters of history — Have not our own days shewn us 
some such even in enlightened and liberalized Ger- 
many ? And although they cannot indeed complain 
of any personal injuries received at our hands, they 
owe it rather to the temper of the people of this 
state, than to the spirit of our laws. 

The laws of your state, Mr. Speaker, have a na- 
tural tendency, by deadening all honorable ambition, 
by barring the doors of offices and an honorable 
profession against them, to extinguish that lofty, in- 
dependent spirit with which a consciousness of self- 
importance and a knowledge that our voice is heard 



( ^9) 

in tlie government under which we live, never fail 
to inspire us. Your laws, by excluding them from 
the enjoyment of purely political rights, which at 
first blush, seem to belong to every man as a mem- 
ber of society, will not permit them however high 
their regard might otherwise be for your state and 
its citizens, and however strong their desire to ad- 
vance its interests, to cherish such regards and de- 
sires or to consider them as otherwise than political- 
ly dead amongst you. Your laws make them stran- 
gers in their own land, and then complain that they 
are such. Sir — 

The flesh will quiver where the pincers tear. 
The blood will follow where tlie knife is driven. 

If your acts and your laws have had a tendency to 
originate and nourish a selfish, unsocial and unfeel- 
ing spirit, could you have reason to complain, even 
if it were admitted that in some instances they have 
been followed by the result which they were calcu- 
lated to produce ? If they have been repulsive, it is 
but reaction upon a like repelling spirit, first mani- 
fested on your part. I have deemed it proper to an- 
swer this objection thus fully, inasmuch as Jewish 
history, Jewish customs, and every thing connected 
with them which could divert the attention of the 
public from the main question, have been summon- 
ed up for that purpose. They have been made the 
masking battery, behind which the enemies of this 
bill would conceal its merits from the eye of vulgar 
prejudice. I have admitted it for the moment to be 
a substantial objection, in order that it might be fair- 
ly met and shewn to be founded on false premises. 

But if these premises were correct, still the ob- 
jection which they sustain is one which ought either 
to be urged, and which ought to prevail to the deni- 
al of every right of citizenship, or which ought not 
in any degree to prevail. If they are indeed the be- 
ings whom this objection supposes them to be, then 
perhaps it might be proper to cede to them, whilst 
G 



(50 ) 

within oiiv territory, the bare rights of an alien, pro* 
lection of person and property. But, sir, we give 
tliein other rights of citizenship, equally dear and 
equally important with this — and why not yield this 
also 2 We (ax them, we require them to perform 
military duties, we give them the right of voting-— 
and can there be any assignable reason worthy of 
consideration, why the privilege of being voted for 
or appointed to offices, should not accompany these I 
Is it not a monstrous anomaly to sever the right of 
electing from the right of being elected to office, 
solely because of religious opinions ? Surely if there 
be danger in the latter, there is little less in the first. 
There is another part of this objection which only 
serves more strikingly to illustrate its frivolous na- 
ture — This their unextinguishable national charac- 
ter, built up by peculiar laws, customs and observ- 
ances, which they have preserved even to this day, 
will (it is urged upon us) ever prevent them from de- 
siring or accepting offices of honor or profit in our 
state^-and why therefore repeal this part of our con- 
stitution for the purpose of tendering privileges to 
tliose who will never avail themselves of them ? — 
Does it therefore follow that we are bound to cede 
a right or to acknowledge its existence, are exone- 
rated from that obligation or may even deny that it 
exists, because those for whose benefit that right 
arises, may not deem it proper to assert or exei'cise 
it ? Sir, w hen we witness a fellow-creature resolute- 
ly bent uj)on self-destruction, upon throwing away 
that life which God has given him a right to enjoy, a:5 
well might we anticipate the act by taking away his 
life ourselves, and then justify the act by saying, 
*' that the murdered individual had indeed a right to 
the enjoyment of his life, but it was a right which 
he was determined to cast away, and therefore we 
were justified in taking it from him." If this were 
one of those rights which arise only upon demand, 
then indeed there would be some semblance of rea« 
son in withholding it until demand made. 



(51) 

The attempts to give a false coloring to this ques- 
tion, have not been made in a corner ; I hold in my 
band a series of remarks upon the bill before you, 
which some kind gentleman, who is too modest ot 
reveal his name, has addressed to the members of 
this house. This ^yriter, if we are to judge from 
the tenor of his remarks, seems very much disposed 
to regard us as lost or wandering sheep, whom he 
as the shepherd would fain bring back to the fold. 
But why this gentleman should have imagined him- 
self called upon by duty, to place himself at our head, 
to march before us as a second Moses, to direct us 
on our way, and to illumine our path, any but the 
writer himself would find it difficult to conceive. — 
Perhaps he may have remembered the memorable 
doctrine, '*that the foolish things of (his world are 
often chosen to confound the wise;" and may thence 
have been inspirited to the present essay in the hope 
that these,his crude & weak observations ,mighthave 
a like influence in confounding and putting to rout 
all those enlarged and liberal political doctrines, 
which are or ought to be, embalmed in (he constitu- 
tion of every free people. When these remarks 
were placed in my hands by a gentleman of this house, 
I did not stop to cHquire for the credentials wliicU 
gave to the author so bold and dictatorial a tone ; 
but immediately addressed myself wiUi earnestness 
to them in the expectation of finding some objections 
to this bill, where my short-sighted vision, after the 
most minute inquiry, had failed to discover any. — 
Alas ! it proved like most other hunmn expectations 5 
shadows that dance before us to invite our grasp, 
but always elude our embraces. After having toiled 
through them without meeting that which was the 
object of my pursuit, a substantial or even plausible 
reason why this bill should not pass — I could not but 
recal to my recollection the beautiful illustration of 
tlie vanity of pursuit after pleasure, furnished m by 
a modern poet — 



( fi2 ) 

Where every touch that woos its stay. 
Has brushed its biigluest hues away— 

and apply it to the result of my labors.— Coming to 
our hands with a pompous note of preparation, a- 
bounding with figures and sesquipedalian >\ords, it 
was natural for us to expect something excellent and 
forcible in the way of argument or persuasion, cloth- 
ed in such gorgeous apparel — but alas! we soon 
found that every touch which wooed their stay, and 
would have submitted them to a closer examination, 
did but brush their brightest hues away. All that I 
have been able to learn from them is, that there are 
a variety of religions in this world, and that some of 
them observe certain ceremonies and hold certain 
doctrines, and others, other ceremonies and doc- 
trines ;— and all this might serve very well to show 
that in their religious worship, until these essential 
differences are removed, these religious sects can ne- 
ver mingle or amalgamate. But what possible con- 
nection this can have with the question before us, 
the teacher may have been able to discover, but I as 
one of the taught, cannot readily perceive. This 
writer seems disposed to argue this question as if ci- 
vil governments were nothing more than religious 
dynasties, and as if the question now were, *' whe- 
ther we should place Christianity or Judaism on the 
throne?" For the present, therefore, we shall pass 
by /ijs remarks, having already bestowed upon them 
much more attention than they could claim from in- 
trinsic merit, reserving to ourselves the right of 
hereafter showing that by a monstrous obliquity of 
judgment, this writer has actually imputed to the 
non-establishment of tlie christian religion, by the 
eivil powers, many consequences which can easily be 
shewn to have floAvn solely from the civil establish- 
ment of it. 

I would now approach the main question which 
this bill presents, disencumbered of all these pre- 
liminary or particular objections. The material 



( 53) 

enactment of this bill is — ** That no religious test 
shall ever he required as a qualijlcation to any of- 
jice or place of public trust tiuder the stale of Ma- 
ryfand." That no such test ought to be required 
for such purpose, is the proposition which I am now 
to sustain. There are, sir, two modes of viewing this 
question: the one of which looks exclusively to the 
arguments adduced in support of the propriety of 
religious tests to be administered in order to tlie en- 
joyment of civil offices ; whilst the other would take 
into consideration and weigh the arguments and per- 
suasions on either side. It is not absolutely necessa- 
ry for the friends of this bill to travel into the ar- 
guments which lie around them, demonstraling the 
impropriety of connecting particular religious opin*^ 
ions with the right of holding offices. They might 
admit all that the most strenuous advocates for the 
continuance of this test can allege — they might ad- 
mit that none but christians ought to till the seats 
of power and office in this state; and yet, with all 
these admissions, they could just as strenuously con- 
tend for the utter and perpetual abolition of religious 
tests, fas these declarations are termed.) as being in 
no degree calculated to produce the desired effect 
or to test the existence of the christian character. 
Yet for the sake of the weaker consciences, it may- 
be proper to present this question under both as- 
pects ; and I would claim the indulgence of the house, 
whilst I endeavor to present this double view. 

If there be any propriety in this or any other re- 
ligious test, it must be because it evinces the existence 
of feelings and principles, which do peculiarly fit 
men for the performance of civil and social duties, or 
because they are essentially necessary to the perfor- 
mance of those duties in the country or state in which 
the religion established by the test prevails. I^ct it 
be admitted then in relation to the christian religion 
which this test and such tests us may be expected to 
exist in our state would render essentially necessary 



{5i ) 

to qualify for office, that it presents us more dis- 
tinct views of our public and private, of our relative 
and individual duties, of our duties as a creature, of 
our duties as a member of society. Let it be admit- 
ted that it furnishes more powerful incentives to the 
performance of sueh duties than are any where to 
be found in the cold doctrines of morality or the dark 
or glimmering views presented by other religions. — • 
Let it be admitted that what in the latter in relation 
to the consequences of human actions is seen but 
^klarkly through a glass," is in the former present- 
ed under a noon-day blaze. Let it be admitted that 
it shews us distinctly in the perspective, a state of 
future rewards and punishments assigned for the per- 
formance of deeds done in the body, and at the same 
time the eye of an all-seeing being upon us, noting 
and registering our deeds in order to our future dis- 
position. Let it be admitted that it places human 
governments upon more elevated ground, by teaching 
lis that they proceed from God, and that those who 
are in authority over us are but his trustees and the 
depositaries of his power. Still after making all 
these admissions I object to the manner of testing, I 
object to the nature of the test proposed to be taken 
away and of all religious tests, as being in fact, no 
tests at all, and as taking away the question from the 
proper tribunal. 

All religious tests impose a penalty upon those not 
professing a belief of the doctrines of the religion or 
relgious denomination, to which it is designed to con- 
fine the enjoyment of offices. The test incorporated 
with your constitution imposes a penalty on all per- 
sons not declaring or willing to declare their belief 
in the christian religion. Let not gentlemen start at 
the mention of the word ^Penalty.' A denial of 
rights otherwise due to an individual is as much a 
penalty as the positive infliction of punishments by 
way of fine, imprisonment or corporal chastisement. 
In fact all of these are nothing more than denials of 



(55 ) 

our right to personal immunity and the exclusive en- 
joyment of our personal* property. It will be re- 
membered that this and other religious tests never 
present themselves for operation until the office or 
place of profit or trust has been actually bestowed. 
It is not until our fellow-citizens or those to whom 
they have confided the power of appointing to offices 
have absolutely elected or appointed us to office— 
that this and other religious tests intervene, place 
themselves between us and the official chair, present 
to us on the one hand all the allurements of official 
dignity and profit, and on the other all the mortifi- 
cation and humiliation of a stripped and degraded 
officer: and call upon us to chuse or to refuse by 
putting to us the question of torture, which we our- 
selves are required to answer, and by which com- 
pulsory answer we are either to entitle ourselves to 
the enjoyment of all the former, or subject ourselves 
to all the latter. Do not such tests appear strange- 
ly inconsistent with the benignant doctrines of our 
constitution, and with the mild practices of our law I 
Not only do they tell us, but reason ako tells us that 
there is something peculiarly harsh in requiring in- 
dividuals to furnish testimony against themselves 5 a 
harshness which should discountenance the right to 
require it|in: civil cases, and which should wholly 
banish it from all cases of penalty or punishment, 
such as the present. Let me instance one or two 
cases which may serve to render more manifest the 
odiousness of such a procedure. — Let us suppose that 
during our present session, a bill had been offered to 
our consideration proposing to make any act whatso- 
ever criminal ; that such bill after having specified 
the penalty or punishment to be imposed for the com- 
mission of the offence created by the act, should go 
yet further, and provideihat the several county courts 
and magistrates within our state should have power 
to compel all persons presented for the offence, to 
answer ou oath, whether they had or had not com- 



( 56) 

iiiittcd the oftence charged upon them. Is there a 
man amongst us whose indignation would not be kin- 
dled to a flame by the bare offer of such a bill in this 
house ? 

Still the case is not strong enough to correspond 
to the one before us. Let us suppose jet further, 
that the bill thus offered did not only propose to in- 
vest the courts and magistrates with the power of 
examining on oath, those presented for any offence 
against the act, as to their innocence or guilt, but 
also to authorise them on mere surmises, and with- 
out any presentment before them, or any cause for 
suspicion, to cause any individual whatsoever, to be 
arrested and brought before them, and compel him 
to answer, whether he had committed any offences 
against that act. Shocking as such an act would 
seem, it involves in it no more cruelty, no more dis- 
regard of human feelings, no more contempt of con- 
stitutional right, than this very test. It proposes to 
exclude all persons not believing in the christian re- 
ligion from the enjoyment of all offices of profit or 
trust within the state of Maryland ; and how does it 
ascertain the existence of this belief ? Why, by press- 
ing into its service the conscience of the elected or 
appointed officer himself — by compelling him to ren- 
der an answer which is eitlier to exempt him from, 
or to subject him to this heavy penalty ; and all this 
is to be done without the least foundation for the sup- 
position that he does not believe in the christian re- 
ligion. Sir, when welistento the detailsof the bar- 
barities practised in Spanish inquisitions, we are 
sometimes ready to leap for joy, because we dwell 
in a country where such acts are unpractised and un- 
permitted. Yet what do they more than wc? They 
do but suspect without cause, and arrest and bring 
before them all on whom their causeless suspicion 
lights. They do but place the arrested individual 
on the rack, and amidst the agonies of his torture 
attempt to wrest from him coufessions of his guilt. 



t 57) 

Does not your test thus operate ? Does it not cause- 
lessly suspect all of disbelief? Does it not place all 
the officers of your state on a moral rack as painful 
and as torturing to the generous mind as the former ? 
Does it not place interest on the one hand and truth 
on the other, and hold forth every inducement to dis- 
regard the latter and to keep an eye single to the 
former. 

Thus its last tendency, Mr. Speaker, furnishes an- 
other reason equally strong, why the individual him- 
self should not be appealed to for proof of his belief 
in the christian religion, and why religious tests are 
improper. 1 have said, that for the individual's 
sake and from a regard to his feelings, this and all 
other tests should be forever excluded. I say yet 
further, that it is equally due to a regard for the 
public interests — All human laws do, or ought pro- 
perly to appreciate human nature. We are taught 
to pray, *' lead us not into temptation,^^ and human 
laws should listen to our prayer, and present none. 
From a regard to this weakness, the laws of a civil- 
ized people never appeal to an accused individual 
for proofs of his criminality. They will not permit 
him to testify on his own behalf, or to purge himself 
of the crime with which he is charged by his own 
declarations. This wise precept is, however, lost 
sight of in this test ; it appeals to the individual 
himself — it presents him honor or profit on the one 
hand, disgrace and degradation on the other— it 
makes his acquittal or conviction rest upon his own 
tongue — it casts stumbling-blocks in the way of his 
honesty and suborns him to false declarations. — Not 
only does ii make his declarations tendered under 
such seducing circumstances, evidence ; but it also 
makes them conclusive evidence of his belief in the 
christian religion. No proof, however high or how- 
ever strong, can be received to rebut the declaration 
of belief, or to exclude him from office. Let him 
hwi make the required declaration, and although the 



(58 ) 

evidence of his disbelief were so strong as to put it 
beyond even the possibility of a doubt, although he 
liad been through life a contemner of the christian 
gospel, both by his language and by his acts — aye, 
sir, although whilst the pen was in his hand with 
which he was to subscribe the declaration of belief, 
he would tell you, and this house, and the world, 
that lie believed not a jot or tittle of that Gospel : 
you could not therefore, put him back from his seat 
of office,- you could not disbelieve his declaration; 
your constitution would compel you to pronounce 
him a christian, and as such to place him in the offi- 
cial chair. Wliat then is this declaration required 
by our constitution? What are all declarations en- 
joined by religious tests, but the gnat which the un- 
principled and abandoned infidel readily swallows, 
and the camel, at which the honest man only, the 
man who may indeed err, but who errs sincerely, 
would choak ? What but the stumbling-block over 
which virtuous citizens fall, whilst scoundrels leap 
over it with ease into office. 

But, sir, if the manner of testing were admitted 
to be proper, permit me yet further to ask, what is 
the nature of this and all other religious tests, and 
what kind of belief does the administration of them 
evince ? If these tests seek for any thing; if they are 
of any avail, they must seek to discover the exist- 
ence of the heart-felt belief; not that belief which 
dwells upon the tongue, but that deep and abiding 
conviction of the divine origin of the christian sys- 
tem, of the purity and excellence of its doctrines, 
and of the force of its commands and persuasions, 
which might be expected to influence the believer in 
liis life and actions. This is the only kind of belief 
which could in any wise eficct the character of his 
official acts, or which could better qualify him for 
the discharge of his official duties. Now, sir, what 
species of belief is sufficient to fulfil to the utmost 
the requisitions of your constitution, or of any reli- 



(59 ) 

gioiis test elsewhere to be found ? I answer, the be- 
lief which the cold-hearted moralist may profess, 
the belief which the very inlidel may profess. The 
administration of your test and of all other religi- 
ous tests, does but evince the existence of a cold, bar- 
ren and speculative belief — a, belief which hears no 
fruit — the belief of him who heareth and goeth his 
way and doeth it not — the belief of him who says, 
*'go thy way for the present, I will hear thee at a 
more convenient season" — the belief of him of old, 
who exclaimed, " almost thou persuadest me to be a 
christian." If I am rightly informed, it has been 
said in some counties of your state, " repeal but this 
clause of your constitution, and there is nothing to 
exclude the devil himself from admission to your 
offices." If this test were all that excluded, there is 
nothing even now, I say it with awe, to prevent the 
devils and the damned in hell from taking a seat in 
this house. We are told, *'that the devils them- 
selves believe and tremble 5" and though it were a 
belief extorted by the agony and anguish of the mo- 
ment, still it is a belief, and as such would satis- 
fy the requisitions of your constitution. 

Sir, these cold and unmeaning declarations do but 
take away the question from the proper trihunal. — 
Say what you will of their efficacy, say what you 
will of their necessity, in order to the sustention of 
any religion, you will find that all efficacy, all heal- 
ing and preserving power resides exclusively in the 
character of the people of your state. So long as 
they continue a christian people, admitting even for 
a moment that the christian religion had aught to 
fear from human efforts, there is no reason to fear 
that those efforts will ever be directed against it — 
There will be no danger in leaving it with them or 
with those who are elected by and responsible to 
them, to determine whether your religion has any 
thing to fear from any candidate fqr their favor. — 
Their selection will furnish some better evidence of 



( 60) 

a belief in the christian religion, than is to be found 
in these mealy-mouthed declarations. They can bet- 
ter tell you than these, who are worthy and who un- 
worthy of office. They witness the individual in his 
ingoings and his outcomings — they see him at home 
and abroad — his conduct in the discharge of public 
and private duties is daily before their eyes — if he 
be the christian — if he be the estimable and deserv- 
ing citizen, they see it stamped in his acts; you learn 
it from his professions. They may indeed be some^ 
times deceived. Unworthy men may sometimes ob- 
trude themselves into honorable and highly respon- 
sible offices — but can gentlemen devise any mode 
which will utterly exclude such individuals from of- 
fice ? or do they see any thing in tests — such as these, 
at all calculated to repel them ? Cast about you on 
all sides and you will find no better test of qualifica- 
tion for office than election by the people or those to 
whom the people have confided that power. Yes, 
Sir, we may heap Pelion upon Ossa, test upon test, 
and we will find at last, that the only test which is 
effectual is the opinion of the people. It will be 
found to draw all to it — if it be wholesome and pure, 
it will not fail to fill the offices of your state with 
men of respectability and virtue — if it be foul and 
impure, all your laws and tests will never operate 
as correctives — ye must go to the source of it, ye 
must drive into the heart and there work a radical 
change. God help the man and the people who fear 
themselves, who dare not trust themselves ? The 
history and experience of all past ages laughs at this 
test and tells you that when the people of any gov- 
ernment are pure, their laws and customs are so ; 
but when they become impure, they taint with their 
impurity all that is connected with them or operates 
upon them. 

Permit mc now to retract the admission which I 
have made of the propriety of connecting religious 
opinions of any particular c^st with the right to en- 



( 61) 

joy civil ofllces, merely for the purpose of shewing 
that these tests hoth from their nature and their 
manner of discovery, are in no wise calculated to 
ascertain the existence of such religious character* 
I would now take the other view of the question, 
which seems to me most conclusively to evidence 
their utter inconsistency with the nature and intent 
of civil government, with the character and mode of 
operation of the religion they purport to estahlish, 
and their most pernicious influence upon the latter 
in stripping of its unearthly sanctity. The disqua- 
lification which is imposed hy this test for the non- 
profession of the christian religion, is of a double 
character — It operates as such not only upon the in- 
dividual elected or appointed to office, whom it may 
exclude, but also upon the people by whom or by 
whose agents he has been thus elected or appointed. 
As has already been observed, this test never inter- 
venes, it never has any operation until the individu- 
al has actually been elected or appointed to office.— 
The eftect of this and of all other religious tests is, 
therefore, to disfranchise him whom the people 
have clothed with a franchise, to declare him un- 
worthy whom the people by themselves or their 
agents, have pronounced worthy of office ; to re- 
fuse to entrust the interests of the people to the 
keeping of him whom they or their agents have 
selected as a competent guardian. It seems tru- 
ly surprising, that the people of this state have not 
taken this view of the question, or if they have 
taken it, that they have not, by acclamation, de- 
manded the abolition of this test. Take away this 
test, and whom have they to fear but themselves? 
In whose hands are they but their own ? Sir, I will 
venture to assert, without the fear of contradiction, 
that this question has not been understood by the peo- 
ple of this state. Chimeras of all kinds have been 
conjured up to alarm them. In some parts of your 
state they have even imagined that the effect af 



(62 ) 

this bill will be, not merely to make all men eli- 
gible to office, without distinction, because of religi- 
ous opinions, but absolutely to elect them. They 
seem to have expected, that on the instant of its pas- 
sage, this house would be swarming with Jews, 
Turks and infidel delegates of every description. 

I lay it down as a general rule, applicable to all re- 
strictions upon the right of choice of officers resid- 
ing in the people or their agents in a republican gov- 
ernment — "'that all such restrictions are odious; 
that they ought to be sparingly imposed; and when 
imposed^ that they ought to be strictly construed.^^ 
In advancing this doctrine, I am enabled by the oc- 
currences of the last week, to entrench myself be- 
hind strong authority. The purport of the opinion 
of the late distinguished Mr. Pinkney, read in this 
house a few days since, in order to the application 
of it to another case, must yet be fresh in the memo- 
ry of every member of this house. That opinion I 
would not indeed adopt to its full extent, and I must 
admit, that in the application of general doctrines 
to the case in which that opinion was sought and 
given, there is a little of that philippizing spirit ma- 
nifested, which would accommodate its opinions to 
the wishes of those seeking them. Still it deserves 
in some measure to be received as oracular, although 
it may manifest some of that fallibility which was 
imputed to oracles of olden times. I would not say 
with that opinion, that restrictions such as those, ex- 
cluding from the enjoyment of two offices of profit 
under the state of Maryland by the same person, 
and at the same moment or even such as the present, 
although they may be odious, are therefore, by mere 
construction to be rendered absolute nullities in point 
of operation. Bui I would say, that they ought not 
to be carried by construction beyond the express let- 
ter ; and that unless absolutely necessary, they ought 
to be repealed, not by implication or construction, 
but by the express act of this house. In all estab- 



( 63) 

lisliec! governments, some restrictions upon the right 
of choice or appointment to offices have heen impos- 
ed, and in some instances properly. In alJ states the 
people have been unwilling to give an uncontrolled 
rein to their will or the will of their agents. To 
render such restrictions proper, they ought always to 
be consonant to the nature of human governments. 
By our constitution, as originally formed, several 
restrictions of this kind were imposed, some of 
which it may always be proper to retain — some of 
which have been already taken away, and one more 
of which, the one now before us for consideration, 
will, I hope, soon go the way of all flesh. 

When gentlemen talk so loudly about the impro- 
priety of removing any of those barriers and fences 
with which the framers of our constitution have 
thi)ught proper to surround the offices of our state, 
they forget that their precautions on this score have 
not been altogether approved of by our predecessors, 
and that in latter days a whole class of restrictions 
by much the most prominent amongst those found 
in that instrument, have all been swept away at one 
fell stroke. — Those revered men held, that no indi- 
vidual could feel a sufficient interest in the govern- 
ment, or in the advancement of the public welfare, 
imless he possessed real or personal property with- 
in the state, varying in amount according to the im- 
portance and responsibilities of the office : and they 
therefore required a properly qualification for the 
enjoyment of almost every office within the state. 
In 1809 and 1810 the delegates of Maryland deem- 
ed these restrictions idle and libellous upon human 
nature, or implying that nothing but pecuniary in- 
terest could stimulate to the performance of duty, 
and they were therefore all removed at one instant. 
Is it then high treason at this day to doubt the pro- 
priety of other restrictions found in that instrument, 
even if we could deem them to be even noiv deser- 
ving of the approbation of those who have inserted 



{64 ) 

them? A small suppositiofti, the fallacy of which I 
have already endeavored to expose. The hand of 
violence has already been upon those restrictions and 
it is now loo late to call it sacrilege. Some yet ex» 
ist as to age and residence within the state or county , 
for which elected or appointed : but these do but 
require civil qualifications which are properly con- 
nected with civil offices and conform to their na- 
ture. It may be right and proper to exclude, by a 
general rule, all not having resided a certain time 
■within the state or county for which they are elect- 
ed, inasmuch as in general before that time they 
cannot be deemed to have acquired a sufficient know- 
ledge of the condition and interests of the state or 
county, or of the duties incident to offices. 

But there is no such conformity in the case before 
us. Religious opinions may indeed better qualify, 
but they are not absolutely necessary in order to the 
discharge of civil duties. Men may discharge, and 
often do discharge, the social and relative duties ip, 
a jiroper manner from many other motives than re- 
ligious motives. There is not, I would suppose, a 
man in this house who would have the hardihood to 
deny, that men may be good and affectionate fath- 
ers, tender-hearted husbands, enterprising and use- 
ful citizens, and even zealous patriots, without being 
practical christians. There are a thousand impell- 
ing causes to the performance of duty, which may 
indeed be different in their degree, in order, and in 
their force, which, notwithstanding all, tend to pro- 
duce the same result. One man may discharge hii 
public and private duties, because he regards himself 
as always in the presence of his God and accounta- 
ble to him for every act which he does in a public or 
private capacity. Another, who is wholly blind to 
these considerations, may have continually in view 
the approbation of his fellow-citizens, and the ap- 
plause of the world ; and for the purpose of obtain- 
ing that, may be stimulated to the performance of 



( 63) 

the very same duty discharged by the other from a 
higher motive. Another may iind every thing a- 
round him to endear him to the country in which he 
dwells. There maybe no bush, or stream, or grove, 
around him, which does not tell him some tale of in- 
fancy and early innocence ; scarcely a dwelling 
which does not contain some friend. There may be 
vast possessions about him, the fruit of his or her 
ancestor's industry. There may be lisping, prattling 
infants at his feet who would stimulate him to cher- 
ish and advance his country as it will in time become 
theirs. In addition to all these impelling motives 
may be named those furnished by the suggestions of 
that internal monitor, the conscience, which is not pe- 
culiar to any clime or any country, and which inde- 
pendently of all revelation, points out alike to the 
christian and to the Jew, the believer and the infidel,, 
the path of right, and would fain exclude them from 
the road of wrong. 

It is not contended that these motives impelling 
men to the performance of duty are alike equal ia 
their purity, or that they will alike entitle the act 
to which they give rise, to acceptance and favor with 
the Supreme Being. It may indeed be true, that the 
right motive alone sanctifies the act in his eyes. But 
with motives independently of acts, human govern- 
ments have nothing to do. Scrutiny into these is 
reserved to him who searcheth the hearts and try- 
eth the reins of men. In the intendment of human 
laws, if the act performed be right and legal, it is 
unnecessary to inquire into the motives. So in rela- 
tion to offices ; if men do discharge their official du- 
ties, it is to us and to this our constitution, a matter 
of the utmost indifference whether it has been per- 
formed from one motive or another, or from any mo- 
tive at all. Nor would I liere deny that a belief in the 
christian religion, not such a one however, as is evin- 
ced by this cold, unmeaning test, but a practical be- 
lief; does indeed better qualify for the discharge of 



{ 66) 

every dutj, individual, relative or social — It may 
point out to us more distinctly what our duty is — It 
may impel us to the discharge of it by motives of a 
higher order, and having much more eiScacy. But, 
sir, the question before us is not one of better quali- 
fication, but of disqualification ; not one of prefer- 
ence, but of exclusion. It is not whether the right 
of one believing in the christian religion ought to be 
preferred, but whether the right of one not believ- 
ing ought to be utterly excluded. To enable any 
one in this house confidently to deny, that any but 
believers in the christian religion can properly and 
faithfully ilischarge the duties of a citizen, either in 
a private or in an official capacity, it is first necessa- 
ry that he should forget all past, all heathen histo- 
ry ; it is first necessary that he should forget all the 
events passing in the heathen world, even in this our 
day. You must throw him back into a state of 
worse than Gothic ignorance. 

Before I can ;^ield my assent to such a doctrine, I 
must first forget the history of him who leaped into 
the gulf, that he might save his country, or of him 
who sought death upon the enemy's spear for a like 
purpose. I must forget the history of him, who to 
satisfy the ofi'ended laws of his country, violated by 
a son, although clothed with the power of dispens- 
ing with her, yet gave his own person to the law in 
partial sufferenee of its penalties — I must forget 
the history of him, who could voluntarily exile him- 
self in old age from all the enjoyments of his native 
country, that she might forever enjoy the benefit of a 
code of laws which had been the work of all his earlier 
years. — I must forget the history of him, who through 
a long life, and in many seducing situations, was yet 
so regardful of the cardinal maxim of the christian 
gospel itself, '*do unto others as ye would they should 
do unto you," that his name in all after ages has 
ever been connected with the epithet of ''just."— « 
I must forget the history of him; who could abandon 



(67 ) 

a plougli, clothe himself with the power, and rohe 
himself with the splendor of royalty at his coun- 
try's call, and at the same call lay them down to re- 
sume his coarse garments and rustic occupations.—^ 
I must forget the history of him, who, although sur- 
rounded with all royalty's flatterers and summer- 
flies, was yet ready to weep that one day had passed 
by unnoted by the performance of a (rood action, 
and cried out '' I have lost a day." Aye, these and 
a thousand such histories, such as these, must you 
and 1 forget, ere we could hazard the assertion, that 
none but christians can perform the duties of citi- 
zens. 

Perhaps some may be ready to exclaim — **A11 this 
may be true in the general -, but you forget that Ma- 
ryland is a christian state, that the christian religion 
is here established by law ; and although as applied 
to a mere civil community, these doctrines are ap- 
propriate and just : yet when applied to a christian 
community, such as this, they are wholly inappro- 
priate." The term, **christian community," or one 
of the same import, has been frequently used by the 
enemies of this bill, and more especially by the 
mammoth opponent upon whose "remarks" I have 
already commented ; and it may be well to inquire 
in what sense this term is accurate in relation to the 
state of Maryland. — Do gentlemen thereby intend 
to assert, that the government of Maryland is a 
mere hierarchy? a government of the saints upon 
earth, and designed solely for the protection of chris- 
tians? Would they have us to regard it as a mere 
christian association? Do they wish to claim for it, 
proceeding as it does from mere man, the same 
high and exalted character which belonged to the 
Jewish government, as imparted by God to a chosen 
and peculiar people ? The notion is so preposterous 
that I cannot suppose it to be entertained by them. — 
Or would they call this a christian community, be- 
cause cJiri^tiaiis are hero ensured the free and un- 



( 68) 

molested exercise of their religion, are here pro- 
tected in their worship and their religious feelings, 
here sheltered from insult by the laws of the land? 
It is true that in the latter sense this is a christian 
community. It is true, that in this sense Christiani- 
ty is a part of the law of the land. All the common 
law, profane scoffing at the christian gospel ; all en- 
deavors to turn it into ridicule, and all revilings a- 
gainst, and contumelious reproaches of our Saviour, 
are regarded as offences punishable by fire and im- 
prisonment. 

Acts have been passed both in England and in our 
state, to extend the civil establishment of the chris- 
tian religion yet further, but the good sense of the 
age has reprobated and repealed them in our land. 
The English law, to which I have allusion, passed 
during the reign of William, does indeed extend ci- 
vil interference beyond protection from contumely 
and insult, even to deliberate and advised speaking, 
and has actually converted into a temporal offence a 
denial of some of the essential doctrines of the chris? 
tian church. Yet still in this act some little respect 
was paid to the rights of conscience, inasmuch as 
such denial wa& only constituted an offence when 
made by those educated in, or professing the chris- 
tian religion, and was still open to other religious 
sects, if done in a respectful and truth-inquiring 
manner. It remained for our act of blood, passed 
in the year 1723, and which was the last in succes- 
sion of a series of similar acts, not only to close the 
mouth of contumely and reproach, but even of can- 
dor and sincerity. It remained for it to seal up the 
christian religion by the aid of temporal power ; to 
close by civil penalties the mouth of the serious and 
earnest inquirer after the <ruth of its doctrines, or 
of the honest though mistaken disbeliever of them, 
whilst the very author of that religion, instead of sup- 
pressing, had invited and challenged inquiry, and had 
bid defiance to disbelief. Until this moment I was, 



( 69 ) 

sir, under the impression tliat this black-letter, dra- 
conian act continued, as many others of like charac- 
ter, to stigmatize our statute book even to this day, 
as a monument of the folly or wickedness of our an- 
cestors ; but I am just informed, that within the last 
two years this portion of the black-letter absurdity 
and barbarity of our statutes has been wiped away 
to the eternal honor of this age. By this detestable 
act the denial of the divinity of Christ, or of the 
doctrine of trinity or of Christ's atonement, although 
made in the most serious manner and not in mere 
scoffing, although made according to the lights and 
convictions of conscience and in honesty of inten- 
tion, although made even in an act of worship by 
the Jew or the unbeliever, who might perhaps at 
that moment be engaged in imploring God in mercy 
to shed around us that light under which he conceiv- 
ed himself to be dwellings even such sincere and 
God-forgiven denial was made punishable by death 
for the third offence. '^Let it then sleep in the shade 
where cold and unhonored its relics are laid.^^ — » 
Christianity now rests for its estahlishment amongst 
us solely on the wise and merciful doctrines of the 
common law. 

These doctrines, sir, are purely those of a civil 
government and are characterised by much wisdom. 
When they w ould seal the mouth of the reviler and 
the scoffer, they do not io the least infringe the rights 
of conscience. Never yet did men of this cast seek 
for truth — never yet was bare reviling or contumely 
calculated to promote its discovery. Having the sin* 
gle tendency of irritating or wounding the feelings 
of those to whom the object reproached is dear, they 
should ever be frowned upon and punished by civil 
governments. The doctrines of the common law 
should, as I think, go yet further, and punish with- 
out discrimination all revilings against any religion 
whatsoever, as attended only with pernicious conse- 
quences. So far i§ this a christian community, that 



( ^0 ) 

ehristians may here woi'ship iminolested, and their 
religion is here protected from mere reproach but 
not further. I object to this test because it would 
carry Uie civil establishment of religion yet further, 
and to a degree not warranted by the character or 
legitimate designs of civil government, and not re- 
quired, or rather deprecated by the religion to which 
it is applied. I object to it because it has a direct 
tendency in common with all other religious tests, to 
revive the almost exploded connexion between church 
and state, under whose double tyranny Europe lan- 
guished for so many centuries, because it goes to es- 
tablish a hierarchy in our land, because it makes the 
christian church, what it was never designed to be, 
by its divine author, a church militant. 

If this or any religious test can be sustained in ar- 
gument, its advocates must rest its defence upon one 
of two designs : — Either it must be designed to ope- 
rate indirectly in propagating the religion or religi- 
ous opinions which it would make the sole passport 
to civil offices ; or it must have in view their protec- 
tion and preservation from overthrow by the arm of 
civil power. Those who contend for the propriety 
of religious tests are here placed upon the horns of 
a dilemma. They must admit one or the other of 
these designs to furnish the only plausible or assign- 
able reason for the introduction or continuance of re- 
ligious tests. The fi rst of these designs is, however, 
a mere supposed one, and one which every cliristian 
and every rational man must instantly disclaim. It 
is not to be denied, that the allurements of official 
power and official profit may, and indeed often do, 
seduce men from the ranks of other religions, but 
have never yet won souls ; and the same seductions 
which would draw them over to the forces of a pre- 
vailing religion, would upon a change of circum- 
stances, have equal efficacy in restoring them to the 
ranks which they have deserted. If men are to be 
drawn from the forces of heresy or infidelity, to those 



( 71) 

of orthodoxy, tliey can be made sincere adherents 
only by a heart-felt conviction of the intrinsic ex- 
cellence of the cause they are about to espouse. 

The only remaining ground of defence is their 
l^ropriety & efficacy in protecting the religion which 
they make the passport to office. Enough has been 
said, as I think, to evince to this house their utter 
inefficacy in producing the desired effect. It re- 
mains to point out their impropriety. — To render 
them proper, it is incumbent upon their advocates to 
prove several things. It is not sufficient for them to 
shew, that in the abstract, civil governments are 
moving within the sphere of their powers and du- 
ties, when they undertake to make religious opinions 
of any cast prerequisites to the enjoyment of civil 
offices. It is not sufficient to shew that it is right 
and proper to prescribe religious tests. They must 
go yet further, and demonstrate that an occasion 
has presented itself justifying and requiring the pre- 
scription of them — that the religion in whose hands 
they would exclusively entrust civil power, requires 
civil protection, and that such protection cannot be 
adequately yielded without the grant of such exclu- 
sive civil power. All these propositions must be sus- 
tained, otherwise religious tests are defenceless.— 
Their advocates must admit that every restriction 
upon the right of electing, residing in the people or 
upon the eligibility of the subject, which is found in 
the constitution of a free people, is odious, is an in- 
fringement of the rights which belong to the elec- 
tors and the elected, as members of society, and can 
only be justified by the calls of some higher right 
or some imperious necessity. Governments may, it 
is said, prescribe religious tests, if they deem it pro- 
per — Admit it for a moment ; and does it therefore 
follow that because they have tlie power, they ought 
to exercise it ? that because they may prescribe, they 
ought to prescribe religious tests ? If they are to be 
blind and to exercise no discretion in the use of theiv 



(73 ) 

power, then such a doctrine may be proper, othet*- 
ivise not. Pursue the same train of reasoning and 
it will conduct you to the conclusion that every re- 
striction, however unnecessary, however unrequir- 
ed, is yet right and proper. You may bring back all 
the old restrictions as to property qualifications -, you 
inay, by the same reasoning, exclude all poor men 
from the offices of your state ; you may give them 
exclusively to professional men. If then the reli- 
gion which they design to protect and sustain, be ad- 
mitted to be sufficiently powerful for its own protec- 
tion, and in no wise to require for such purpose the 
exclusive right to wield the civil powers of your 
state, then, although you were admitted to have the 
power of prescribing religious tests, you are still 
not justified in prescribing them or continuing them, 
because they are not necessary or required, and are 
in contravention of acknowledged civil rights. 

Sir, my reflections upon this subject have induced 
me to deny 'Hhe abstract right and propriety of pre- 
scrihing religions tests^^ — They have induced me to 
deny their necessity, & let me briefly state the reasons 
which have conducted me to this conclusion. Religion 
and civil government are essentially different in their 
nature and modes of operation — The one is the law 
of God, the other the law of man, and hence their 
striking differences. Human governments look but 
to the outward man — they sit in judgment but upon 
the action — If the action be proper and legal they 
can go no further — if they punish but for the secret, 
unexecuted thought, the judgment of the world ne- 
ver fails to pronounce the act odious and tyrannical. 
But religion deals only with the inward man — it calls 
into judgment for every secret thought. Thoughts 
and intents are solely the subjects upon which it ope- 
rates, and it dives into the heart and drags them 
thence for inspection. Human governments regard 
man solely as a member of society, and all their o- 
perations have for their sole object the performance 



( 73) 

of social duties, of the duties of a citizen. Religion 
regards man solely as the creature of an all-wise and 
all-bountiful Being to whom he is indebted for life 
and all that renders life estimable, and to whom in 
return for his protection and beneficence he owes obe- 
dience^ submission, veneration and thanksgiving. — 
In a word, the empire of human laws is ''actions," 
of religion is intents^ — the former is the empire of 
matter, the latter of mind. This view of their cha- 
racteristical differences shews us in a very clear man- 
ner how grossly human laws err when they wander 
beyond the region of ac( ions into that of mere feel- 
ing, thought or belief unaccompanied by acts. — 
Hence it is that mankind have always regarded with 
the utmost abhorrence and have always denounced 
with the most unsparing severity, all the acts of hu- 
man governments calling men into judgment for se- 
cret, unexecuted thoughts. 

Such a view serves also to show us how idle and 
worse than idle are all the attempts of human gov- 
ernments to inculcate religious doctrines or to sustain 
or to overthrow them. If they take root at all, they 
spring in a soil over which human laws have no con- 
trol, in the heart over which God alone has domi- 
nion. Here by the decree of Providence they can- 
not come. When then men talk of giving a protec- 
tion to religious doctrines, of cherishing religious 
feelings or of extirpating them by human laws, they 
are speaking of what is in the very nature of things 
an absurdity and an impossibility. Sir, the only 
sense in which human governments can be said to 
protect religion is by preserving secure and unmo- 
lested the persons and property of those who profess 
it or believe in it. They cannot protect religion, they 
can only protect its followers. The christian religion 
in the days of Heathenism, when its followers as its 
author had not a home in which to shelter themselves, 
when they w^ere driven to deserts and caves for pro- 
tection, when they were cast to wild beasts to be de- 
K 



( ^i ) 

voured, when tliey were torn or sawed asunder of 
roasted hy the slow fire, was as strong, as powerful, 
as well fenced about and protected as it is at this day, 
in Maryland, where this test exists and where chris- 
tians or nominal christians are exclusively robed with 
civil authority. Yes, Sir, when it was oppressed and 
trodden down by the great scarlet beast of infidelity, 
it was as powerful, nay, even more so than it is now 
amongst you. It has intrinsically nothing to fear 
from your operations, it can gain nothing from your 
assistance. Your laws must therefore be content to 
regard man solely as a member of a civil associa- 
tion, for all human governments rightly considered 
are nothing more — they are in fact merely associa- 
tions of individuals, who in order to secure for th© 
protection of their rights the combined assistance 
and strength of all those with whom they are about 
to associate, have each consented to yield up a cer- 
tain portion of their natural rights ; and all the pow- 
ers of human governments arc composed entirely of 
those portions of natural power, ceded or presumed 
to be ceded by each member of society. The whole 
control of human governments over their subjects is 
based upon a presumed assent given by those sub- 
jects to the exercise of such control 5 and as in a 
state of nature no such control over religious opin- 
ions exists any where, it cannot by possibility exist 
any where in a state of society. Individuals can on- 
ly cede to governments the powers which they have, 
and the latter can only exercise ihe powers which 
individuals have or may be presumed to have ceded 
to them. Civil governments must, therefore, of ne- 
cessity abstain from interference with religious opin- 
ions until they produce a neglect of civil duties or 
violations of civil right. 

In yielding protection to religion in the only sense 
in which they can be said to yield it, they must yield 
it indiscriminately ; they must regard it as wholly 
nvithout their jurisdiction 5 they must not iniermed^ 



die with its followers as such, either for good or 
evil, until it leads Ihcin into some breach of civil du- 
ties. Our declaration of rights, in its Sod section, 
has recognized in very distinct terms the propriety 
of these limitations of civil power. It explicitly de- 
clares the right of all men to worship God in the 
manner which they deem most acceptable to him, 
and that they ought not to be molested by law in 
their person or estate, because of their religious 
persuasions, professions or practices, unless under 
color of religion they disturb the good order, peace 
or safety of the state — infringe the rights of morali- 
ty or injure others in their natural, civil or religious 
rights. This clause, if literally construed, does of 
itself seal the death-warrant of all such religious tests 
as this If thus construed, we cannot but regard the 
inhibitions to molest in person or estate because of 
religious opinions, as tantamount to a prohibition of 
the deprivation of any civil or political riglits what- 
soever for such cause. The word * 'estate" must be 
taken to mean not merely property, but civil and 
political estate or condition. And the protection 
which is to be extended to the followers of any reli- 
gious sect, is a protection given to them not as fol- 
lowers of that sect but as citizens. As it relates to 
the enjoyment of their religious opinions, the only 
protection which can be properly given is a bare 
protection from insult, a bare sufference of exist- 
ence. It should be a calm, cold protection, extend- 
ed by the hand of indifference — It should be such a 
protection as would have been extended by the phi- 
losophers of old, who held all religions equally use- 
ful in a civil point of view — It should be a protec- 
tion not professing to be in any degree founded upon 
a conviction of the intrinsic excellence of the reli- 
gion protected, but solely upon the knowledge that 
its doctrines and external observances do not mili- 
tate against the duties of a citizen. 
Mr. Speaker, when human governments are tread- 



( ^6) 

iiig upon the delicate and dangerous ground of civil 
interference with religious opinions or institutions, 
and when they would travel beyond the proper lim- 
its of their authority into an inquiry into the intrin- 
sic excellence of any religion existing under them, 
and when they would carry their interference be« 
yond a mere sufferance of existence to exclusive ci- 
vil establishment, they would do well to remember 
the wise and salutary doctrine of Gamaliel of old, 
as it is found in the christian gospel, and as it was 
applied to the christians theipselves for the very pur- 
pose for which it is now about to be applied to the 
Jews and other unbelievers. ** Let these people a- 
lone," said he to his brethren the Jews, who were 
then meditating the commencement of civil persecu- 
tion against the christian religion and its followers, 
in the hope of extirpating them — **Letthem alone," 
said he, *' if their design be of men, your efforts are 
unnecessary ; it wants a firm and stable foundation, 
and it will fall to the ground without your exertions. 
If it be of God, ye cannot gainsay or resist. Take 
care lest in your interferences with them you be 
found striving against God himself." Let the equal- 
ly wise and liberal conduct which the Jew of old 
prescribed to be pursued by his brethren, the Jews 
of that day, in relation to christians and the chris- 
tian religion, at that time just raising their heads 
upon earth, be the very course which the christians 
of this day, the christians of Maryland, will here- 
after pursue in relation to the Jew or the infidel. 

The tables have turned 5 the case to which this 
doctrine is to be applied presents the parties whose 
interests are involved in it, in a very different point 
of view. That religion which was then a stone cut 
out of the mountain, now fills a large portion of the 
globe. The Jew who had then the power to oppress, 
is now prostrate before the rod of civil persecution ; 
hut from age to age it is the same wise and salutary 
doctrine 5 and it is one which the christian of this 



(77) 

state should blush to see banished from his practice 
in relation to those very people who once applied it 
to his own religion, then equally the object of scof- 
fing, reviling and oppression. Let no one say, *'it;c 
carry this doctrine in relation to this people as far 
as it was extended by their ancestors to our religion, 
and we have extended it as far as reason requires 
us to carry it in giving them the uninterrupted en- 
joyment of life, liberty and property.^^ They did 
not indeed extend to christians or to followers of any 
other religion, or to people of any other nation, any 
degree of political privilege or liberty -, but they 
ivent as far on the road of toleration as their gov- 
ernment permitted them to go. Theirs was not as 
ours, a mere human government ; theirs was in all 
respects a hierarchy ; every civil institution, every 
ritual observance, every religious doctrine, in fine, 
every thing connected with them as a people came 
alike from the hands of God, whom they regarded 
even as the head of their civil government. Every 
part of their civil and religious polity had been built 
up by the hand of Providence as a barrier and wall 
of separation between them and all other nations, 
until he should come who would cause it to be swal- 
lowed up in a religion embracing Jew and Gentile, 
people of all nations and of all tongues. 

AVhen we can plead for our civil polity the same 
divine origin, it may be proper to exclude all but the 
saints from civil government, but whilst it bears a- 
bout it so many marks of mere mortality, and whilst 
it professes to be nothing more than a mere bond of 
union, mere articles of association between mortals, 
we must be content to regard it as such. It is, there- 
fore, that I would deny the assumption that we do in 
practice amongst us carry this doctrine of Gama- 
liel as far as reason demands ; it is, therefore, that 
I deny the assumption that there is nothing like per- 
secution in these tests. In what language have gen- 
tlemen found so limited a signification given to the 



( .-8 ) 

the word *• persecution?'' Is nothing to be termed 
such but an actual imprisonment of, or violence 
done to the body, or a deprivation of property ?-— 
Nothing but that which operates upon the mere 
matter of human nature ? I have always supposed^ 
that every denial of a right due to any citizen be- 
cause of opinions or beliefs which give no cause for 
such denial, is persecution, whether that right be a 
right to bodily safety, to property, to elect to office, 
to hold offices, or any other natural or social right 
whatever. A contrary doctrine is one, which, as I 
would suppose, gentlemen would be ashamed or 
afraid to avov^r in this state. Why, sir, for what 
have we fought, and what did we establish, if it be 
not the doctrine '*that men are not the mere pro- 
perty of their governors — that government is creat- 
ed for their benefit, and ought therefore to be sub- 
ject to their control, and liable to be altered or cast 
off at pleasure, and that for this purpose every citi- 
zen of proper discretion has a right to have his voice 
heard in the government under which he lives?" — 
Then why not apply these doctrines to these citizens 
as well as to others ? why not to citizen-Jews as well 
as to citizen-christians ? are they not your citizens ? 
do you not tax them as such ? do you not give them 
the right of voting as such ? do they not hold pro- 
perty among you as such ? If your government is 
admitted to have the power of taking away civil or 
political rights improperly, from any one citizen, it 
may from all. If it can take away one class of such 
rights, it can take away all. You may with equal 
propriety take awa^ the right of voting, and leave 
such citizens wholly defenceless at your feet. 

Therefore are religious tests pronounced to be im- 
propery and what has been said serves strongly to 
manifest them wholly unnecessartj , Why would 
you extend protection to religious systems beyond a 
bare toleration ? Is it because they require it in or- 
der to their sustention ? The very admission that they 



( 79) 

require it stamps the lie upon tlie cliaracter wliicfi 
they wear and proves them to have nothing of divini* 
ty about them. If they do not require it, if they can 
sustain themselves without it, why then yield it at the 
expense of the civil, political or religious rights of 
others ? Why furnish it when your very establish- 
ment of such systems has a tendency to weaken them^ 
to draw them away from the strong arms of God, 
and to teach them to lean for support on frail, totter- 
ing man ? 

Sir, my convictions that religious tests are unne- 
cessary and improper in the State of Maryland, arc 
very much strengthened and become almost irresis- 
tible, when I look to the origin of the religion to 
whichjfor its security,they would give exclusively the 
civil powers of your state — when I call to meroory 
the conduct and the language of the author of that 
religion throughout his earthly career — when I wit- 
ness its progression to the present time, and its vari- 
ous conditions in the course of that progression. — I 
have not found that author seeking for the propaga- 
tors and protectors of the system he was unfolding 
to man, amongst the great and the wise and the weal- 
thy and the powerful of earth. — I have not found 
him in obedience to the vain and idle notions enter- 
tained by the Jews of his day, seeking to rohe him- 
self or his religion in temporal power or splendor.— 
I have found him in the tents of the poor, illiterate 
and despised fishermen, confiding to their yet unskil- 
ful and powerless hands, the promulgation of his gos- 
pel. He has said '*that his religion came without 
hands and shall progress without hands, that is to say^ 
without human aid." These tests say ''it requires and 
ought to receive human aid." He has said "his king- 
dom is not of this world." These tests say *'his 
kingdom ought to be and shall be of this world."-— 
He has said '*take not the high seats in synagogues 
or the lordly places amongst men." These tests say 
*^^take them and take them exclusively." He has 



(80 ) 

said ^Hliat his religion shall go forward and prevail 
against man." These tests say **we must take heed 
lest it fall before men." Ought not christians in- 
stead of advocating such tests rather denounce them 
as false and as containing by implication a libel up- 
on their religion ? Were the author of that religion 
in this assembly this moment with the dove from hea- 
ven on his head, he would tell you one and all ''ye 
are stigmatizing my religion by the continuance of 
these tests — ye are making it of man when I have 
told you, when its own uncultured growth and in- 
crease has told you, it is of God." 

But if the civil establishment of religion, by tests 
or in any other way were only unnecessary, although 
that very fact is sufficient to justify or rather to re- 
quire the downfall of such establishment, ii does not 
more imperatively demand it than the consequences 
of such establishment upon the religion established. 
Not only have your excluded citizens reason to com- 
plain of it, but your religion itself as loudly rebukes 
you in the midst of such acts. It tells you that when 
you touch it, when you incorporate it with your civil 
institutions, when you seek to make it a civil institu- 
tion, you taint it with human impurities, you with- 
draw it from the arm of God, you throw it upon the 
arm of man, you strip it of its divine, you clothe it 
with an earthly character. 

When was it sir, that the christian religion was the 
most pure, when the most powerful ? Was it not in 
the very day when all the princes of the earth rose 
up against it, when persecuted its followers reviled 
not, when trampled upon, they turned not in anger? 
In what jera of the christian religion can you point 
out to me such bright examples of piety, forti- 
tude, self-denial, forbearance and every christian 
virtue, as are furnished in the lives of the fathers of 
your church, as they are termed, in that day when 
they had nought to sustain them but a conviction of 
the intrinsic excellence of their cause I In what age 



I SI) 

can you point it out to me so well sustaining itself, so 
vigorously advancing itself as in that age ? Sir, from 
tlie very day on which Constantine saw Ihe cross in 
the cloud, from the very day wliich first saw it recog- 
nized by the civil powers, may you date tlic com- 
mencement of all those corruptions which so degra- 
ded and deformed your religion during many ages of 
almost Heathenish superstition. You may witness 
in the frightful history of tliis gloomy aUd protract- 
ed period, and in the origin and progress of almost 
every religious sect known to you, to exclusive civil 
establishment, where that has taken place, the unse- 
parable concomitants of such Establishment, pride, 
arrogance, self-love and a contempt and prostration 
of all other religious sects. AYhere have you found 
gross corruptions or hideous immoralities but in es- 
tablished churches ? Where have you found an in- 
solent, haughty, domineering clergy but in establish- 
ed churches? Where have you found a superstiti- 
ous, enslaved and degraded people but in estab- 
lished churches? Where have you found a sys- 
tem which is in itself a system of humility, modera- 
tion, temperance, forgiveness and philanthropy in its 
practical operation, converted into a system of arro- 
gance, ostentation, intemperance and persecution, 
where but in established churches? 

Most unfortunately for himself and to the down- 
fall of all his positions, the sage ai'.v-bor of the re- 
marks of which I have already spoken, has, in his 
wisdom, referred to tJie history of revolutionary 
France as shewing what christians and the christian 
religion have to fear from the extension of civil pow- 
er to any but believers. It is alas ! a most unfortu- 
nate instance to which to refer, to illustrate the con- 
sequences of a neglect to give a civil establishment 
to the christian religion, an instance which above ail 
others, most conclusively evidences the pernicious 
tendency of such estabiisliment. 

Why was it, sir, that during that unfortunate spra the 



(82 ) 

doors of tlie cliristian temples were closed, their mi- 
nisters driven in mass from the French Kingdom, the 
whole christian system pronounced to be the fabrica- 
tion of mere mortals, and even death itself declared 
to he but an eternal sleep ? Was it because the chris- 
tian had previously enjoyed no civil power in the 
land ? Was it because he was without any other arm 
to sustain than that of God, an^ other sword to wield 
than that of conviction, any other persuasives than 
those wliich were to be found in the intrinsic merit 
of the religion he sustained, and in the heart-pierc- 
ing efficacy of a holy life ? Or was it not rather be- 
cause the christian religion had been clothed with 
purple and fine linen and placed in the high seats of 
power and dignity ? Was it not because its guardians 
and ministers, lifted up above themselves and above 
the meek and lowly character of their office, grown 
blind to its duties by gazing upon the splendor of 
their temporal station, and in the fancied strength of 
human support,casting off their reliance upon divine 
protection- — was it not that they thus infatuated, ex- 
changed all the virtues which belonged to, and be- 
came their spiritual office, for all the vices which too 
often await the enjoyment of such temporal power 
and rank ? 

Unreflecting mortals always judge of a system 
from the character of those who sustain and propa- 
gate it ; and iC general such a mode of judging is 
proper and satisfactory. More especially in religi- 
ous matters do men find it extremely difficult to se- 
parate the conduct of followers and propagators from 
the characters of the religion adhered to. So did 
revolutionary France judge ; and when looking back 
through the history of the ruling church, she found 
nothing but abuse of power and gratiiication of eve- 
ry lustful appetite, exemplified in the conduct of the 
prominent members of her hierarchy, in the bitter- 
ness of her indignation against the corrupt charactei* 
of her priesthood, she cursed and pr<>strated the syp- 



( 83 ) 

iem to which it was nominally attaches. It is abso- 
lutely necessary to the sustention of religion and the 
preservation of it in its original purity, that its fol- 
lowers should have continually before their eyes its 
entire dependence upon God and the necessity of con- 
tinually exemplifying its influences in their lives, in 
order to its propagation All this they too often lose 
sight of, when they find other props upon which to 
rest it. 

But, Mr. Speaker, if such tests as these are incon- 
sistent with the character of human governments 
generally, and even of pernicious tendency to the re- 
ligion which they would protect, permit me to ask in 
conclusion, if they do not appear doubly so, when 
applied to the government under which we live? — 
When 1 look to the contrast which it presents with 
that of other nations, I cannot refrain from using my 
own language, framed for a different object, but e- 
qually illustrative of this : — 

In thy wanderings through the wood. 
Hearer, hast thou never viewed 
Some dell of dark and dreary hue. 
On which o'er-archiog branches threw 
A shade unbroken, save by ray 
Which here and there by winding way, 
Through scarcely parting branches strays. 
And steals to earth through leafy maze- 
Hast thou not marked where'er it fell, 
How every herb of that dark dell 
Grew bright and fair beneath its glance; 
Their brightness serving to enhance 
The dull, drear tints of tliose which drew 
No draught of light to vivify their hue. 

Such, sir, is your country,— .the bright green spot 
of the earth rendered but the more brilliant by the 
dark, dreary shade around it : and why sir, let me 
ask you and this House, why is it thus bright and 
dazzling ? It is not to be found in the fact that we 
have promulgated any new doctrines in relation to 
civil, political or religious rights. It is not to be found 
in the fact that we are in the actual enjoyment of ci- 



( 8-i ) 

Til libeit^^ It is not that our persons are aetuallj^ 
exempt from insult and our property unmolested by 
the hand of unlicensed violence. 

Tins is that of which, as I have elsewhere observ- 
ed, the meanest citizen of Europe or Asia, in some 
of its most oppressed and degraded sections, may 
boast in common ^vith us. But the great and lead- 
ing distinction between our country and others is, 
that what with them is a mere matter of indulgence, 
resting solely upon the personal virtues of those in 
authority over them, or springing from the compa- 
rative insignificance of the person exempt, is with 
us a matter of right, in no degree dependent upon 
such contingencies, and a right effectually protected 
by the share which each of us have in the adminis- 
tration of the government. It is not the actual en- 
joyment of the rights of person or property that 
constitutes what I would term '^civil liberty," but it 
consists in the belief tlmt we enjoy such rights, and 
in the knowledge that tlie power is resting in our 
own hands, by which we can protect ourselves in the 
enjoyment of them. It is political liberty alone 
which renders our government of any value — it is 
that alone which gives us what I would denominate 
** civil liberty." 

All this ye have denied, or ye may with equal pro- 
priety deny, to every citizen who will not declare 
his belief in the christian religion. You have taken 
away the right of holding offices, and ye may as pro- 
perly take aw^ay the right of electing to offices. — 
Where then is all that boasted civil liberty, which, 
it is said, Jews and other unbelievers enjoy amongst 
you ? It rests merely upon your good will and plea- 
sure, a tenure which civil liberty ever did disclaim. 
It deserves not the name of liberty, but simply that 
of personal indulgence. You may not, it is true, 
persecute them, in the more narrow sense of the 
word, but what is there to inhibit you but your own 



( s^ ) 

imrestfained dispositions ? AViiat secunly for them, 
but that >vhieh they might find in any government? 

It Avas the denial of that vei'y species of libeHy 
which you yourselves arc refusing to your own citi- 
zens by this test, which impelled your ancestors to 
that spirited resistance, that gave you tlTis very con- 
stitution. Their persons and their properly might, 
with as much truth, have been pronounced secure as 
those of the Jews and others amongst you at this 
day — they enjoyed civil liberty by as durable a ten- 
ure. What was the most prominent and material 
part of the grievances of w hich they complained ? 
It consisted in acts of legislation, in which they had 
no participation. It was found in the attempt of llio 
English Parliament to do for them what you at this 
day are doing for the Jew s and unbelieving citizens 
of your state, kindly saving them the trouble of giv- 
ing their assent to laws passed in a legislative body, 
to which they had not aclmission, but which w ere to 
operate upon them. They did not think as gentle- 
men of this day seem to think ; that actual enjoy- 
ment for the moment and a right to enjoy arc syno- 
nymous and convertible terms ; at least they cast off 
the strong ties of parentage, and risked all the pri- 
vations and dangers of an unequal war for the pur- 
pose of changing the former into the latter. 

Let me tell you, sir, in conclusion, that yours is 
the only government in which Men have not deemed 
it advisable to disguise and mask the deformity of 
religious tests, by political reasons of some kind or 
other, however fiimsy or transparent they may have 
been. Yours is the only state in which they have 
no political fig-leaf to hide their nakedness. Yours 
is the only state, to its shame and disgrace be it con- 
fessed, which has attempted to meddle with religi- 
ous opinions, merely as such, in fixing the qualifica- 
tions for civi! offices. You may upbraid the Eng- 
lish government at your pleasure, for the extent and 



(86) 

severity of the disqualifications she has levelled a- 
gainst the Roman Catholic citizens of her kingdom, 
but she lags far behind yours. In the plenitude of 
her bloody restrictions, she was ever ashamed to a- 
vow what some amongst us seem make a matter of 
boast, she was ever ashamed to say, that she thus 
disqualified them because of mere religious opinions. 
She charged them with blending with these, politi- 
cal doctrines and designs, incompatible with the du- 
ties of a British citizen — She alleged that they ac- 
knowledged the supremacy ot a foreign temporal 
power, and she excluded them upon the same prin- 
ciple that she excluded an aJien. 

If I had not already trespassed so far upon your 
indulgence, I could point you to the Armada, the " 
gunpowder plot, and many occurrences of the reigns 
of the Charleses and the Jameses, and of the first 
jnonarchs of the Protestant succession, as furnishing 
many plausible, if not weighty political reasons, for 
the existence of such civil disqualifications. Your 
own provincial government knew no other religious 
tests than those which were introduced for the secu- 
rity of the Protestant succession to the English 
throne. It remained for your state government to 
exhibit an unblushing interference with what is the 
exclusive prerogative of God, a scrutiny into mere 
religious opinions. 

Sir, I can but too surely foretel the fate that a- 
waits this bill ; I know but too well the result of the 
late elections amongst you. But if its enemies should 
be triumphant, it is a triumph over which they should 
rather weep than rejoice. They may rest assured, 
that the higher they exalt this idol of theirs, this 
darling clause of our constitution, they are but lift- 
ing it up to its fall — Its elevation will be as that of a 
pigmy upon a pedestal, to use the expression of ano- 
ther, which only serves to render the littleness of 
the elevated object more conspicuous ^ it will but the 



( 87) 

more attract to it that which it has every reason to 
fear, the earnest and scrutinizing gaze of our citi- 
zens ; and, sir, the shouts of the victor will not die 
away hefore they are succeeded by the groans of the 
vanquished. I have done. 




^Vftw>■^'^^A^^;^:^. 



axoa.ooc:i 






M.A.fl 'W'r^^' ;*.n 



¥mk 






^A'T^AAA^Hll' 



'^4aA%' ,,„ 



l«' ' ?^A^ 



mtij^m^^s^m^ 



\^l/^^'.m: 



\^ A^l^f^^^f^ 



*mfm^. 



^fvC,A^(, 



'^/^•::^'^c.A'; 



'/^iin^A^^' 





















^ISS5&& 



^O^A.'Va A 






^i^^^^' 






